Schopenhauer on the planets

Posted on by leyoucis

Schopenhauer and Berkeley

Schopenhauer is an idealist. That is he believes the world is in a sense as it appears to the observer. However, Schopenhauer is not a Berkelean or a subjective idealist; he posits a thing-in-itself. For Berkeley, the world is contained in the mind and space is relative to the perceiver. This makes the stars in the sky specks in the sky. That is, they exist as they appear to the observer. If you can get closer pictures of the stars, they are simply big specks in the sky. This is further solidified by Berkeley’s instrumentalism, which says the abstraction of the sciences only has value as far as it wields practically results. That is, it is a fake abstraction that happens to work.

The nature of planets

However, Schopenhauer posits a thing-in-itself. Thus, the world in a sense exists independent of the perceiver. There is a world out there independent of the mind but it simply exists as a compactification point, i.e. something that exists as a unity without diversity. Thus, the planets really exist for Schopenhauer and you could theoretically travel to them. However, Schopenhauer still accepts the phenomenal world as appearance. This in essence cuts out anything that would potentially lead to alien life. You can go to the moon but the microbes on the planet don’t constitute life since you don’t see them under ordinary circumstances. When you look at them under the microscope they are simply specks in your vision. Organic compound doesn’t necessarily produce life and things are that way simply because they are that way on earth. Thus, the planets are simply balls of mass that exist in a spacial void. Another place where Schopenhauer deviates from materialism is that cosmologically earth is at the center of the universe. Humans are no more than animals but are distinct from animals as they are the highest grades of the wills manifestation.

German Idealism

The Vedanta and Skepticism

Posted on by leyoucis

originally posted 7/31/22

It is important to note that the Vedanta shares more similarities with German and British idealism than it does with skepticism. Maya is to be interpreted as a positive metaphysical claim that shares structural similarities to that of German and British idealism. It is only under the false pretenses of the ordinary language movement that would conflate this with skepticism. Indeed, while the skeptic will not make a claim one way or another as to the illusionary nature of the world, the Vedantist will affirm the statement in the positive and continue to act in the world in a disorganized manner. The skeptic really leads himself to inaction, while the Vendantist continues to act in the world. Indeed, according to structuralism, the structure of a positive metaphysical claim always differs from that of an epistemological claim. To see another case to elucidate things, see Mctaggart’s denial of sense data. This not only refutes evolution and dinosaurs and so forth, but it also refutes things such as music if your willing to follow the argument. The skeptic will not make a claim one way or another whether evolution is true or not and will continue to enjoy music, since music is not metaphysical. The northern Europeans share more similarities with with the Vedanta, but it is up to the races who have more originality. So this is under the French structuralism which is hinted at in Radakrishnan’s work. The Vedanta actually shares more in common with traditionalism than they do with skepticism.

Back to Indian philosophy

The Advaita Vedanta of Samkara

Posted on by leyoucis

Samkara and Guadapada  

   Samkara, the writer of the Vedanta, was a Hindu philosopher eho lived between 788 and 820 AD. The advaita Vedanta is a reanalysis of the Upanishads. Samkara maintains that the Vedanta is simply a systematization of the Vedas. However, according to current analysis, it is a tricky issue whether the Vedanta is simply a systematization or an extension of the Vedas. Although the Upanishads is a disconnected document containing conflicting views, the Vedanta merges these views into a coherent whole. However, Samkara’s account of the Upanishads probably is closer to the original version than his predecessors. Many believe that the Vedanta with its Maya is simply a disguised form of subjective idealism of the Buddhist variety. Further it is held that Samkara adopted additional elements of Buddhism such as monasticism. However, Radakrishnan believes Maya goes beyond Buddhism. However, the Vedantist conception of moksa shares similarities with nirvana.

  Guadapada was the first expounder of the Advaita Vedanta and was supposedly the teacher of Samkara’s teacher and lived in the late seventh century and early eighth century. He discussed many of the central topics of the Vedanta. Guadapada lived during a time when Buddhism was very popular and so he incorporates many elements of Buddhism. In contrast to Samkara’s work, Guadapada argues that dream experiences are equivalent to waking experiences. Dream experiences, with their convoluted framework, do not fall short of reality, but simply do not meet the conventions of ordinary experience. They form a separate class of experiences but are coherent. Waking and dream states are equally real within their own conventional frameworks. Since waking experience is on par with dream experience, Samkara concludes waking experience is in a sense unreal. Two other predecessors of Samkara were Bharthrari and Bhartrprapanca.

Atman

     Samkara does not question the results of psychology and the sciences but asks what their presupposition is. The presence of the world implies there must be something which presupposes it that is a transcendent presence within oneself. This self is the Ātman. Like Descartes, Samkara finds self-certainty to be the foundation of the world. However, it is important to know that Ātman is really Brahman- i.e. all of reality. Samkara argues that the Ātman cannot be known directly since thought is part of the not-self that the Ātman presupposes. It escapes thought, but it does not entirely escape us. The self is both known and not known but is to be distinguished from both the world and thought. The self is not to be confused with consciousness since consciousness is subject to decay. The Ātman is “pure consciousness” or “mere awareness.” Descartes attempted to distinguish the self from the not-self and establish the former an existence in its own right. However, the world depends on Samkara’s Ātman, which is given a transcendent status.

Brahman

    Samkara upholds the ontological argument. The cases of the finite push for something infinite beyond it. He demands that reality requires something that does not need the support of anything else. However, Samkara does not uphold a list- as many theologians do- of attributes of God. Samkara also rejects the cosmological argument- which is in favor of a first great cause. Samkara regards the causal nature of a thing to be svabhava and the effect to be visesa. Brahman is the great svabhava with the world its visesa. It is thus foundational and not contained in any point in space. It is “nowhere and everywhere,” it “is not a cause,” and it “is inexpressible,” is “not finitely comprehensible,” has “no qualities,” and “is related to nothing else.” It is described in negative terms but contains a positive character- it is non-being, but that does not imply it is nothing. But it is not to be regarded as a “blank.” It is not, but we cannot say what it is. There are thus both a positive and a negative description of Brahman. The negative description is that Brahman is transcendent cause and the positive description is that Brahman is all of reality. Brahman and Ātman have the same characteristics and in fact, Ātman is Brahman.

. . .

Isvara

     Samkara does not believe in a personal God except as an ideal copy of Brahman- that is, a copy of Brahman as it appears to the individual put through the categories of time and causality which is practically useful. As said earlier, the cosmological argument falls through for Samkara. The idea of an absolute beginning- an uncaused cause- is self-contradictory. Similarly, the question of the problem of evil cannot be ascribed to a benevolent God, nor can we instantiate a dualism between God and Satan. Ascribing personality seems impossible for reason. Ultimately, no rational argument for God as a supreme being is acceptable. Brahman becomes Isvara when shaped by phenomenal forms. This phenomenal copy, when we think of it, brings Brahman closer to our understanding and our worship. Usually, Samkara does not draw a sharp distinction between Brahman and Isvara. Isvara’s personality combines the qualities of Brahman and Prakrti.

Maya and Avidya

    Samkara maintains that the precise relationship between Brahman and the world is transcendent since any attempt to explain the relationship applies finitary methods to something infinite. Thus, we cannot say that Brahman is the cause of the world. Nor can we say that Brahman manifests in itself or that it acts in the world. We cannot say that brahman transforms itself into the world either since if the whole is transformed into the world, then Brahman will become identical to the world and there is nothing transcendent in which we seek and if a part is transformed into the world, then Brahman can be partitioned making it not eternal. The word Maya registers this gap between appearance and reality. The illustration of Maya is the analogy of the rope and the snake. One sees a rope and mistakes it for a snake but we have no knowledge as to why this is so. We can say that Brahman appears as the world as the rope appears as the snake. Brahman does not depend for its existence on the world. The world is the vivarta, or perversion, of Brahman. vivarta thus signifies the way Brahman appears as the world of space and time. Another interpretation of Maya is that it is the “dividing force”, i.e. the “finitizing principle” that creates forms in the formless. As such it is neither identical to nor different from Brahman.

    Since Maya is deceptive in character, it is called avidya or false knowledge. Avidya is the subjective apparatus that causes life to turn into a dream. Avidya is that cognitive device that pluralizes the absolute into many appearances. The whole world is traced to avidya or false knowledge, but does this mean it is an illusion or a creation of the mind? The answer is no. Brahman is still what is real- which continues without change or transformation and is not affected by avidya. All of waking experience- being reduced to a dream- does not affect the reality of the whole. The “supreme reality of Brahman” is the basis of the world and there is to some extent reality in appearances. Avidya is not purely subjective but also contains an element of the objective. Maya and avidya really are the same thing except seen from different sides- avidya being seen from the subjective side and Maya being seen from the objective side.

Comparison with some Western views

    Samkara’s theory of knowledge comes the closest to Kant. Both assert a phenomenal world that wedges itself between us and the real world. Rather than positing a thing-in-itself, Samkara constitutes the illusion of the world within experience. The Vedanta can also be compared to that of Henry Bergson- which deals with a creative evolutionary process in man. However, Radhakrishnan argues that Samkara does not believe the growth of intellect forms a static sequence. Radhakrishnan thinks that the Vedanta shares the most similarity to that of Bradley’s relationless monism. For Samkara admits that the way we perceive things is not reality. However, unlike Bradley’s perspective of reality as being complete and perfect, Samkara stops at the inharmony of reality.

Ethical Behavior

   The final goal of the Vedanta is to obtain Brahman, which eventually creates happiness. As long as someone thinks he is an individual soul, a clinging to existence occurs- but when the person realizes he is all of reality, he stops being unhappy. We cannot often change the world with our bodies, but we can change the world with our minds. Good behavior helps achieve this end, and bad behavior does the opposite. The key insight of the Vedanta is a lack of egoism and a devotion to society. Vedic rituals are less important than the obtainment of salvation. To obtain Brahman, one should ease his desires. The virtues are tranquility, restraint, resignation, concentration, and progression in mind. Samkara retains belief in caste in a milder form. Two objections to Samkara’s ethics are considered. First, if the world is an illusion, why not engage in bad morals? The first objection goes away if we realize the world is not purely illusory. Second, if Brahman is all that exists, there is no motive for ethical behavior. That is, moral values are not ultimately real since it is not necessary to obtain Brahman. However, obtaining Brahman will help negate further negative behavior. Also, acting morally can help one realize Brahman; moral action in the world can help abolish avidya.

Jiva

     The jiva is the self as it exists with memories, ideas, and preferences and the Atman is the pure self. The object of self-consciousness is not the Atman but the jiva. The jiva is considered to be the same thing as the Atman- that is, it is the Atman conditioned by the object. It is conditioned by Buddhi, or the intellect. In addition to the jiva and the Atman, there is the organic body, the life organs, and the subtle body. There is also the saksin or the witnessing self.  The witness self helps maintain the identity of the individual in a series of mental ideas. It is difficult to determine the exact relationship between the jiva and the Atman. The Atman lies in the background and moves the jiva. This may seem unusual but it must be remembered that a motionless item can move something else such as a magnet and iron.

Moksa

    Moksa was available to individuals for all time. Moksa is not the “abolition” of the self but is the realization of its “infinity” and “absoluteness” by the “expansion and illumination of consciousness.” The form with which the world is experienced changes and there is a recognition of the oneness with Brahman. When one obtains Moksa, he becomes released. The world is not dissolved but a new state of mind is obtained. The plurality of appearances and the distinction of things disappears; One sees himself in all things. Appearances are somehow transmuted into another form and blended together. This merging into the absolute is in some sense beyond description. Moksa brings about pure happiness and the person can continue to live in the world, but his attachments go away. Samkara believes that Moksa is not consistent with work for the world since all activity presupposes plurality.

Karma and Future Life

    Samkara assumes karma. Karma is a force which accompanies a person’s moral actions and which can accumulate from lifetime to lifetime. Even when past deeds are resolved, new karma can accumulate. Moral life continually generates and regenerates until moksa is obtained which makes future birth impossible. When one gets rid of avidya, karma is removed. Actions done with expectations yield karma, while actions done for their own sake do not. However, the world is not deterministic determined solely by a person’s karma. A person is responsible for his own acts and karma only assists his behavior. Until moksa is obtained, people are bound up in the continual process of samsara and are born again and again. No new arguments were advanced by Samkara to defend future life. But when a person dies, a “seed” is left behind which creates a new organism. Samkara is against the materialistic view that the soul is just the body which dies when the latter is destroyed. The soul is independent of the body and must survive when the body is destroyed.

Back to Indian philosophy

Guenon on the Mind Matter Distinction

Posted on by leyoucis

originally posted 6/24/22

Guenon holds the metaphysical interpretation of Fichte- a Frenchman- but Guenon also says once you remove the mind-matter distinction the question resolves itself naturally and I assume he means people are by nature idealists- that is unrestricted. However, When Guenon makes this claim, he is really alluding to the neutral monism of Averroes of the Renaissance. I in fact made this claim about 3 years ago that the ancients are in fact idealists by nature. But now I am not so sure. The reason is you have to posit some sort of substance to constitute the body in order to know whether the body is restricted or not. For how does one know how the body acts without positing a substratum for the body? Really, I don’t think a person such as Marcus Arruleous would have known one way or another how he obtained success and whether other people would be able to obtain the success that he had. The reason is you have to follow the nature of the philosophy that he subscribed to- stoicism- which is some form of skepticism. What about the other ancient philosophers? The Ionian philosophers posited, for example, that all is water, or all is fire. This means that the body probably would act smoothly, or sporadically, respectively. With Eleatic philosophers such as Zeno- with change is an illusion- again he would say the bodies actions are an illusion and not restricted or unrestricted and so forth. Thus this makes idealism and all of the developments associated with it a specifically renaissance and modern development in the West.

Back to traditionalism

Intellectual Biography of Julius Evola

Posted on by leyoucis

 Early Experiences

    Keeping in the spirit of his philosophy, Evola does not list autobiographical details from his youth. Perhaps there was some abuse in the family and perhaps there was not. Any ways, Evola was born into a Catholic family. However, from an early age, Evola found himself with a predisposition for and an interest in “transcendence.” The other thing was Evola initially found himself attracted to mathematics in his youth.

     In Evola’s early twenties he found himself attracted to the philosophical movement in Italy known as “futurism.” The futurists lead themselves to a rejection of both all things academic and all things Bourgeoise. Its main goal was progress and action. The futurists enjoyed things such as cars, airplanes, and youth. Meanwhile Evola was undergoing studies at an academic college as an electrical engineer. But Evola- true to the spirit of his philosophy- dropped out one year before the completion of his phd. He says there are two types of people: those that have degrees and those that do not. During this time, the first world war broke out of which Evola was assigned a spot as an artillery officer on the front line.

     After the war, Evola became involved in the Dadaism movement- another artistic movement in Italy during the early 1900s. Dadaism was one of the first artistic movements in Europe to move away from the realism found in medieval and early modern art into a form of abstract expression. Dadaism was an Avant guard movement which pushed traditional boundaries and disrupted traditional aesthetic categories. they affirmed a unity between order and disorder. Evola describes Dadaism as “sensorial idealism.” According to Evola, Dadaism made use of “pure means of expression,” removed from “all emphasis on content” in order to evoke absolute freedom. Evola was one of the main figures in the movement and personally knew many of the other leading figures of the movement. One of Evola’s main achievements was an exhibition of fifty-four paintings held in 1920 in Rome.

The Speculative period of magical idealism 

    It was around this time that Evola experienced an existential crisis. It was around this time that Evola began to experiment with mind altering drugs-particularly psychedelics- although they were not called that at the time. These experiences provided him with not only “inner phenomena,” but also certain understandings with regard to doctrinal matters that would have been hard to obtain otherwise without the use of alternative techniques. Rather than following the path of the existentialist, Evola found himself absorbed in transcendent issues. This began with his philosophical period of magical idealism- between 1921 and 1927. Evola started with a translation of the tao-te-ching by Lao Tzu. In the book, Evola wrote an introduction in which he interpreted Taoism as a form of idealism- and the rest of the book is clouded in idealist terminology. This decision, Evola later regretted- opting in later editions to see the tao-te-ching in Eastern spiritual contexts. After this, Evola turned his attention and began to systematically study post Kantian German idealism.  The Italian heads of this tradition: Giovanni Gentile and Benedetto Croce appeared to Evola to be endorsing a convoluted, academic, and bourgeoise version of this theory- so Evola turned his attention to the direct study of the original documents. Evola admits the influence also of Nietzsche on his thought but to a lesser extent than his predecessors. From these sources, Evola constructed his theory of magical idealism in which he posits four fundamental principles of the individual: (a) solipsism, (b) projection of the past from the present, (c) absolute freedom, and (d) oscillatory relationship between the subject and the physical world.

Evola’s Esoteric Phase

     Now begins Evola’s second distinct phase of his career. He had invented a new form of idealism which was arguably an inspiration behind Mussolini’s rise to power. That would be enough to make a great philosopher. However, Evola now begins his esoteric phase. Evola believes esoteric practices and the resulting customs and practices should be practiced exactly as they are handed down throughout history- making him a traditionalist. However, Evola does not necessarily believe in an underlying unity behind all religions, making him not a perennialist like Guenon.

Tantrism and the UR group

     In the mid-1920s, Evola found himself attracted to the works of tantrism- a controversial Hindu and Buddhist metaphysical doctrine in which the entirety of civilization is identified with a feminine goddess. Tantrism is rooted in metaphysics but is based on spiritual experiences. Even though the West is typically characterized by an affirmation of the will to live and the East a denial, tantrism focuses on harnessing metaphysical power in order to affirm “the transcendental affirmation of the I.” Shakti– the feminine principle- manifests itself in a form of cosmological magic with “transbiological energies.” On the practical side, Evola discusses many practical and taboo techniques of the practitioner in order to affirm the power of the “I” such as yoga, meditative exercises and ritual practices. Around this time, Evola also wrote his book Pagan Imperialism, in which he recommends infusion of spiritual and religious ideals into the fascist state.

     In 1927, Evola joined the mysterious magical order: the “UR Group,” which was led by Evola and Reghini. The UR Group successively wrote “Introduction to Magic” in three volumes between 1927 and 1929- an esoteric magazine. The focus of the UR group was not on magic as it was popularly known throughout the medieval period and renaissance but focused instead on “high magic”- that form of magic that is conducive to initiatory wisdom. The aim was threefold: an outline of methods, disciplines and techniques, publishing of rare Eastern and Western texts, and critical investigation into the subject matter. One of the original ideas expounded in the magazine was the idea of “conditioned immortality”- which is the notion that the individual is not endowed with a soul that is by rights immortal. Evola’s work in the UR group would later form a basis for his later work.

The hermetic tradition and critique of contemporary spirituality

     In 1931, Evola published the book The Hermetic Tradition. In the book, Evola documents an original interpretation of hermeticism along traditionalist lines- focusing on alchemical Hermetica– which consists of those hermetic texts of mythical origin which originated with the Greeks, continued with the Arabs, and reached the European West during the renaissance. These texts discuss chemical and metallurgic operations- “particularly the production of gold, of the philosophers stone and the elixir of wisdom”- discussed at times in coded and symbolic language and incorporating the myths of antiquity. According to Evola, the singular importance of alchemy is the transformation of the individual, with secondary importance in the transforming of metals due to supranormal abilities in the self-transformed initiate. He particularly points out that substances mentioned in the texts are actually symbols embodying forces present in man and nature. 

     In Evola’s The Mask and Face of Contemporary Spiritualism, published 1932, Evola defends traditionalism against contemporary spirituality. He argues that two opposite realms into the transcendent exist which naturalism is situated between- that of the “subnatural” and “subpersonal,” and that of the “supernatural” and “super-personal.” The former process is inferior to it and is most commonly pursued in contemporary spiritualism. The latter process is superior to it and is pursued in the realm of tradition. Evola then goes on to critique several contemporary currents. He describes psychical research as self-transcendence by descent since it attempts to apply the scientific method to a realm where it cannot be applied. Steiner’s anthroposophy is dismissed due to its muddled, convoluted framework and its original insights which is typical of the subpersonal. The descent into the primitivism of savage people- which is typical of contemporary thought- is described as regressive. In one of Evola’s chapters, he gives a positive description of Catholicism. Catholicism is to be held in higher esteem than primitive Christianity and is full of traditional structure, which has a greater inner seriousness than profane philosophy and intellectualism.

Revolt Against the Modern World

     In 1934, Evola wrote his main book on traditionalism- Revolt against the Modern World. Revolt is a study of the decline of the West throughout history. The common error that causes this to arise is the mistaken optimism in “progress.” They thus regard degeneration to be achievement. Evola contrasts the “world of tradition” and the “modern world.” The world of tradition incorporates two opposing orders: the physical and the metaphysical. The latter order is superior while the former order is inferior. It is the goal of a traditional civilization to lead one to the superior mode of operating. This is initiated into the public through a higher authority. Evola outlines in a traditional civilization things such as law, ritual, relation between the warrior and priestly caste and relation between the sexes. Evola then outlines the morphology of civilization- beginning from prehistory. He contrasts the doctrine of evolutionism with the doctrine of devolution. In the book, Evola ends up merging the Western and Eastern yuga periods each of which number four. The modern period can be seen as the kali-yuga (dark age) of the Hindus. History is marked by a shift of power from the highest caste down slowly into the lowest castes- shifting from the spiritual authority into the warrior authority into the merchant class with the bourgeoise, and finally into the peasants. It is important to note that Evola does not necessarily mean by revolt a return to ancient paganism, but a return to ancient spirituality of the previous yuga periods. Also, Evola’s suggestion for a return to the past is non-Eurocentric- as he gives equal weight to all civilizations.

Mystery of the Grail and the Doctrine of Awakening

     In Evola’s The Mystery of the Grail, published 1938, the book contains an analysis of the myth of the holy grail from the medieval period which is rooted in Christian tradition but contains much that is not Christian.  This deals with King Author and his court within the Celtic and Nordic tradition. The king looses his strength and in order to regain it, must use the grail. The myth can be seen as containing an initiatory (as opposed to a mystical) character. Evola regards the myth as representing a precise historical moment. He sees the myth as an expression of the medieval attempt to unify Europe in contrast to the spiritual world of the church. Evola then describes those groups which are the inheritors of the myth of the grail such as the Freemasons and the Rosicrucians.

     In the late 1930s, Evola concentrated on his most important Eastern texts- The Doctrine of Awakening and The Yoga of Power. However, these were not published until 1943 and 1949, respectively. The Yoga of Power is the definitive treatment of Evola’s work on Tantrism from the 1920s. In The Doctrine of Awakening, Evola reveals the initiatory character of Buddhism. This is expressed in the doctrine of awakening- a text written by Buddha which had supposedly been lost throughout the centuries until rediscovered by Buddha. Evola maintains that Buddhism transcends religion while retaining an initiatory aspect. Evola outlines the theoretical aspect of Buddhism but also concentrates on the practical aspect, that is asceticism.  The fundamental feature of Buddhism, according to Evola, is its practical aspect. Evola then goes on to treat later developments in Buddhism: Hinayana and Mahayana.

Issues in Race and Political Philosophy in Men among the Ruins

     Although racism has been associated with the more problematic features of the third Reich, Evola developed his own philosophy of race. Evola distinguishes between three types of race: the race of the body, the race of the character, and the race of the spirit. Evola argued that it is the inner race that is to be considered the most important. I think what Evola is getting at here is that he believes in racial differences but at the same time he believes in identicality of the intellect so there is relative uniformity among the races. At the same time, he is an idealist, so he is removing the brain, so there is no biological guarantee which race a person is. In other words, you should eyeball it. This gives the Hindu’s something to improve upon, for example. They should retain the castes but level out the equality of each caste. It is important to note that Evola’s philosophy of race is not anti-semitic in nature. Evola’s philosophy of race ended up becoming the philosophy of race of the Italian fascists- allowing them to adopt a philosophy of race similar to the Nazis but retain their own original impulse.

     Evola’s Men among the Ruins, published 1953, was Evola’s attempt at a genuine reestablishment of the Right. In it, Evola rejects liberalism as an attempt to subvert and control the world. However, Evola is not endorsing the “capitalist right,” but simply the religious and political right.  The true state is thus controlled by some kind of higher order which is embodied in an authority. This authority creates “stability” and “unity” in the political organization. This is best found like that in Rome with religious warrior ideals- used to “nourish,” “awaken” and “sustain” the individual’s ability to “act,” “think,” and “fight.” Thus, the state forms an organic unity with just inequality. This is in sharp contrast to the totalitarian state. In doing so, Evola distances himself from dictatorships. He also wishes to distance himself from any society that places economy first. So, Evola emphasizes an organic, hierarchical unity, rejecting purely economic considerations.

Metaphysics of Sex and Ride the Tiger

     In 1958, Evola published Metaphysics of Sex, in which Evola uses metaphysics in the broad sense of any claim about the fundamental nature of reality that transcends the physical. In it, Evola contrasts his metaphysical interpretation of sex from biological/psychoanalytical descriptions in which sub-personal instincts are aimed at the repropagation of the species. Evola argues that sex brings about a shift in consciousness that gives one a glimpse of the metaphysical.  Sex is also aimed at reintegration of the partner within himself, perhaps involving a merging of his soul with his partner.

     In Evola’s Ride the Tiger, he describes the path of the man of tradition in the present world. Nothing can be done to change the present situation in which a lack of tradition reigns supreme. This man, according to Evola, should not abandon the contemporary world altogether but should accept it while retaining an element of traditional character. This is precisely what “riding the tiger” means: allowing those forces which according to contemporary society foster destruction and allowing them to act in a way to cause liberation. Riding the tiger pertains only to the inner life of the individual and in no way applies to “external goals” and the future.  Even though the doctrine of cycles plays a crucial role in traditional doctrine, it should not be able to stop one’s inner life in the present. He points out areas of dissolution in contemporary society and explains how the man of tradition may handle it. However, Evola is again clear that he sees contemporary spirituality as a form of decomposition, which serves as a bad replacement for religion.

Back to British and Continental Idealism; Back to Traditionalism

Guenon’s Critique of Theosophy

Posted on by leyoucis

Description of Theosophism

     Theosophy is the new religious movement established in America in the late 1800s by the Russian Jew Helena Blavatsky. Theosophy is described to be esoteric Buddhism together with some original ideas thrown in. Esoteric means that it only treats only those aspects of Buddhism that transcend reason such as reincarnation and the chakras. Some of the original ideas popularized by theosophy involve the astral plane, astral projection, and the levels of the ego. The astral plane is the idea that there is a plane of existence that exists coterminous with our plane of existence and in which Ghosts live.

     According to Guénon, there is no principle theosophical teaching, but it is presented as the core of all religion and the “absolute truth.” In addition to Eastern doctrines, theosophy also includes traces of Western doctrines such as Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Jewish Kabbalah. It claims to be of Eastern origin but takes on a totally Western character. A lot of the ideas involved are in fact wholly modern. Guénon claims it attempts to displace Christianity from the planet.  (THP, 2, 90)

     The main goal of theosophy according to Guénon is “progress.” The theosophists believe, for example in four-dimensional space and will go even further with higher dimensions such as seven-dimensional space. Theosophists typically regard their doctrine to be “transcendent materialism” in which the only thing that exists is matter. Matter, space and motion constitute the core of the universe. The Theosophists also have a progressive version of reincarnation. (THP, 101-104) Transcendent materialism means that they believe in the metaphysical but under a reductionist lense. For example, the law of attraction could be subscribed to but is interpreted under a reductionist lense. Heaven and hell may exist, but these are real physical places that people go to in embodied form. When it comes to higher dimensional space, this is where the conception of the hypercube originates that we see at times in India.

     Blavatsky had a correspondence with a mysterious group of figures called the Mahatmas- which I assume was psychic correspondence, but which was also maintained through the writing of letters. The Mahatmas are the highest-ranking members of the occult hierarchy which according to the theosophists secretly govern the world. There are seven of these Mahatmas and they were initially known as “brothers” but changed to “adepts,” (borrowed from the Rosicrucians) to mean those who have achieved the highest rank in their hierarchy. They are also sometimes known as “masters” (THP, 38). The theosophists regard the Mahatmas to be living men located in Tibet, but who have developed superpowers.

Guenon’s Critique

No real Mahatmas

     Guénon clearly does not like Theosophy and throughout the text goes at great lengths to critique it and show its pseudo-religious character. For one thing, the historical accounts given by Blavatsky were often fabricated. For example, the trip to Tibet that she supposedly took initially never happened (THP, 21). Guénon maintains that most of Blavatsky’s many spirit guides throughout her times at the theosophical society were in fact fabrications based off of people and esoteric societies she had been in contact with. For example, John King, her initial spirit guide was a person not a spirit and she never had contact with HB of L (THP, 11-13, 15-19). Blavatsky’s “spiritual guides”- John King and the Mahatmas- only actually reflect various people that Blavatsky had met throughout her life. Some of these guides and esoteric organizations had used Blavatsky as a cover, while others Blavatsky used for her own benefit. Thus, those who believe she made it all up and did everything by herself were just as mistaken as those who believe her claims concerning the spirit guides (THP, 24).

     In reality, the word Mahatma cannot designate a person, for it in reality designates a purely metaphysical principle that cannot be applied to human beings. There is evidence that the letters sent from the Mahatmas were in fact taken from other sources. For example, an article appearing in an occult magazine that was supposedly a letter from one of the Mahatmas turned out to be an article written by a professor at New York. This caused Blavatsky to switch to a new Mahatma, who was never referred to accept in appendices. The Mahatmas were not simply invented out of thin air by Blavatsky, but were inspired by others (THP, 39–44). In fact, Guénon says that sometimes she declared that she had made it all up in times of desperation. Blavatsky was in touch with the Rosicrucians, of which she translated some of the ideas about the adepts. For example, the book L’Etoile Flamboyante was a book written about several high masonic grades that borrows from the writings of an esteemed Rosicrucian. The idea of adepts who live for ever is also borrowed by some documents of western esotericists. Indeed, the idea that the adepts are located in the middle-East also comes from these same sources in which Western adepts have been regarded to leave for India. Thus, whenever Blavatsky located information about masters in old Rosicrucian texts, she incorrectly interpolated this as about the Mahatmas. (THP, 45-49) Indeed, Guénon said in 1913 he proposed a meeting with one of the figures associated with the Mahatmas who was supposedly located in the Balkans and when the meeting was arranged. a Western theosophist was all that showed up saying the supposed individual was unable to accompany them.

Sources are actually fully Eastern and not Mahatmas

     Guénon claims the doctrines involved are in fact taken from Eastern sources and compiled into a “wholly” modern framework- which is full of contradictions. Where do Blavatsky’s original ideas come from if not from the revelations of the Mahatmas? She simply acquired her work through her travels. Partly arising from the likes of Jacob Bohme and Eliphas Levi and various kabbalistic and hermetic treatises. There are in fact letters from Olcott to Blavatsky recommending various rare Eastern and Western texts. (THP, 82, 83) Blavatsky as a librarian, purchased and kept many rare books, the contents of which appeared in her main written books. These books had been manipulated and changed to her own liking- which is thoroughly full of contradictions. These were thrown together in an incoherent manner in which some interesting documents are found in a mass of uncontrolled jargon. (THP, 84) The original ideas obtained by Blavatsky were thus full of contradictions.

Defense against transcendent materialism

     This is in contrast to the Easterners who don’t even have a conception of matter (THP, 101). Indeed, it is difficult for the Westerner to understand Eastern conceptions with the advent of matter in the West. The Eastern conceptions are attempting to gain access into the fundamental nature of reality through speculation without a notion of matter. Similar to the Schellingian interpretation of mythology, this is very often obtained in the present moment- possibly with the advent of drugs. Indeed, it is difficult for a theosophist to understand the true nature of things when they have not had the drug experience. The drug experience gives first had acquaintance with the metaphysical. I personally have had experience with drugs and the outcome was an understanding of the metaphysical. Certain mythologies have their own more materialistic notion of mythology that could possibly be interpreted along materialistic lines, but this is certainly not how things have been reached in the East and a lot of times in the West. When it comes to magic, alchemy and astrology, Catholics have for the most part always interpreted these along nonreductionist lines. The Catholics make clear from the beginning that the soul is a Non reductionist entity that departs from the body upon death and enters a metaphysical domain. In addition, according to Guénon, there are clear sources from the Indian document that the different previous yuga periods had no materialistic component to them whatsoever. This is in contrast to Blavatsky’s cyclic understanding.

Back to Traditionalism

A contemporary Defense of Magic

Posted on by leyoucis

According to the definition of magic, there are a bunch of subtle forces that permeate the cosmos; there is no way of knowing how many of these subtle forces there are and what kinds there are, but one can begin to tap into these subtle forces through a posterior intuition. One cannot know for certain that these forces exist but by trying things in the world they can begin to figure out how it works. This leads to a variety of maneuvers in order to tap into these forces, leading to a variety of black magic, red magic, white magic, and Evola’s favorite: high magic. To present standards it seems as though the positing of these forces are a flagrant denial of Ockham’s razor: positing more entities than is necessary to explain things. However, I’m not so sure. I will now argue that magic is no less plausible than recent scientific theories such as string theory. String theory is regarded by even many leading philosophers to be not simply physics but actually a form of scientific metaphysics. Indeed, the source of the principles is empirical, but what is extrapolated from those principles is beyond empirical verification. One must ask himself what is positing more extravagant entities: string theory or magic? The strings in string theory seem to be even more extravagant of entities than simply a plurality of forces that underly the cosmos.

In order to verify whether anyone is ever able to epistemically justify real magical phenomenon from experience, let’s look at a thought experiment of an extreme hypothetical situation. Lets say someone says I am going to perform a hand maneuver and then after that someone is going to show up at my door at 3:15 PM exactly and there is going to be a little red ink stain on his shirt- and that person has not shown up at your door for three years. And you perform the hand maneuver and then this actually happens. Lets say the next day, you say I am going to perform a hand maneuver and then someone is going to call me on the phone and recite 20 random words that you agree upon ahead of time. And thjen you do that and it happens. The chanc es that there is not magical phenomenon going on at this point is now probably 1 in 1 million or something like that. Let us say that then you do this 300 times over the next year and the results turn up every time. The chances that there is not something magical going on is now 1 in 300 billion or something like that. The logical positivist will now find it very likely to insert false hypotheses in order to maintain that nothing magical is going on such as that you afctually had the idea that the person was going to show up at your door in your subconsious. But the logical postivist simply attadcks the metaphhysician on grounds that are difficult to deefend through second order experience. SWe know in this hypothetical case that not only that that is not the case but that the person has the right to conclude that that is not the case.

German Idealism and the Enlightenment

Posted on by leyoucis

    German idealism is the philosophical movement arising in Germany between the late 1700s and mid-1800s. It was coming off of the heels of the enlightenment in which a devaluation was placed on organized religion and the esoteric organizations, and an emphasis was placed on rationalistic metaphysics and the scientific method. However German idealism after the works of Immanuel Kant really existed in a semi state between the enlightenment and the exiting out of the enlightenment that took place in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Although Immanuel Kant was an epistemologist, the German idealists after him were full-blown metaphysicians. Although there were transcendent metaphysicians in the enlightenment such as Leibniz with his doctrine of universal harmony, I am arguing that the German idealists in fact all dabbled in the esoteric. First of all, the German idealists shifted into a process metaphysics, which was not seen before. This takes place with, for example, Fichte’s positing of the world or Hegel’s Geist. Process metaphysics can be seen as bordering on the esoteric. In fact, Hegel drew inspiration from esoteric texts in order to come up with Geist. In addition to the process metaphysics, they further dabbled in the truly esoteric. Novalis, the Romantic, came up with his doctrine of spontaneous healing- an esoteric claim. Also, Schelling’s and Schopenhauer’s philosophy borders on the esoteric. Schelling affirms to a certain extent the reality of mythology, and Schopenhauer comes up with his conception of Will, in which an evil spirit can get caught and mess with the individual. I am not saying that that is the most central part of Schopenhauer’s philosophy, but it is a central part, nonetheless. Indeed, it is difficult for the average person to see all three parts of Schopenhauer’s philosophy: the scientific, the philosophical, and the esoteric. Thus, we see all of Fichte, Novalis, Schelling, Hegel, and Schopenhauer, who’s philosophy borders on the esoteric. Thus, we see a hinting at esotericism, in German idealism, but no new esoteric organizations.