[SPLIT] Traditionalism and Christianity

[Nodens]

I see. Scholarship doesn't matter...only some form of Traditionalism whose alleged origins fly in the face of scholarly texts on religious history.

A form of Traditionalism that flies in the face of most prominent Traditionalists as well. Using Guénon or Evola to support exoteric Christianity or Islam is as wrongheaded as using Nietzsche to promote Judaism. Yet further evidence that Christian academia is entirely devoid of intellectual integrity.


“You, who have puzzled so long amidst the mazes of River Street, are you surprized at the mysteries within its mysteries?” murmured Erlik Khan.

“Truly, you have but touched the fringes of its secrets. Many men do my bidding – Chinese, Syrians, Mongols, Hindus, Arabs, Turks, Egyptians.”

“Why?” demanded Harrison. “Why should so many men of such different and hostile religions serve you –”

“Behind all differences of religion and belief,” said Erlik Khan, “lies the
eternal Oneness that is the essence and root-stem of the East. Before Muhammad was, or Confucius, or Gautama, there were signs and symbols, ancient beyond belief, but common to all sons of the Orient. There are cults stronger and older than Islam or Buddhism – cults whose roots are lost in the blackness of the dawn ages, before Babylon was, or Atlantis sank.

“To an adept, these young religions and beliefs are but new cloaks,
masking the reality beneath. Even to a dead man I can say no more. Suffice to know that I, whom men call Erlik Khan, have power above and behind the powers of Islam or of Buddha.”

-Robert E. Howard, Lord of the Dead

[Anthropos]

A form of Traditionalism that flies in the face of most prominent Traditionalists as well. Using Guénon or Evola to support exoteric Christianity or Islam is as wrongheaded as using Nietzsche to promote Judaism. Yet further evidence that Christian academia is entirely devoid of intellectual integrity.

Look it up in The Crisis of the Modern World then, where Guénon paints the picture very clearly, saying that the only European tradition that it would be meaningful to labour on for the future is Christianity. He also refutes all the attempts that had been made, at the time of writing, of restoring lost traditions, in that book as well as in The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times. You are wrong here.

However, Christianity does not depend on Guénon, because Christianity preserved its own documents within its own tradition.

[Nodens]

Look it up in The Crisis of the Modern World then, where Guénon paints the picture very clearly, saying that the only European tradition that it would be meaningful to labour on for the future is Christianity. He also refutes all the attempts that had been made, at the time of writing, of restoring lost traditions, in that book as well as in The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times. You are wrong here.

However, Christianity does not depend on Guénon, because Christianity preserved its own documents within its own tradition.

An argument by which you display your inability to acknowledge the difference between the esoteric and the exoteric (see, you aren't the only one who can use unqualified argumentum ad hominem).

[Anthropos]

An argument by which you display your inability to acknowledge the difference between the esoteric and the exoteric (see, you aren't the only one who can use unqualified argumentum ad hominem).

Ad hominem? Where? I must contest this.

The exoteric part of a tradition, Christian or other, is its 'outer' part; that means the outward form of the applications, the social and moral aspects of it, and so on. The esoteric part is the 'inner' message and the initiatic aspects of it.

But you surely must have misunderstood something, because these two parts of a tradition taken together make up the tradition as a whole, and there is no sharp line between them.

[Nodens]

Ad hominem? Where? I must contest this.


Oh, hahaha, very funny. You are sooo cool. The doxophobic West rocks!


For nutty historical revisionists, well... There are many of you here on The Apricity, so I will let you speak for yourselves.


Neither of you understand the difference between tradition and custom. There is no reason why I should continue to debate with you, when even the fundamentals of the discussion pass you by completely unnoticed. Please continue imagining things now. And this linking of things that are irrelevant is nothing but childish, Loddfafner.

You regularly seek to attack the credibility of your opponents while acting as though your claims may be taken as a given. Adopting an authoritative tone and casually dismissing dissenting arguments does not establish you as a credible party to the debate. Hence, the (valid) accusation of a lack of intellectual integrity. The only thing I'm having trouble understanding is why anyone here still considers it worthwhile to engage you on your own grounds.


The exoteric part of a tradition, Christian or other, is its 'outer' part; that means the outward form of the applications, the social and moral aspects of it, and so on. The esoteric part is the 'inner' message and the initiatic aspects of it.

But you surely must have misunderstood something, because these two parts of a tradition taken together make up the tradition as a whole, and there is no sharp line between them.

And you continue to demonstrate my point.

[Anthropos]

Okay, so now you are quoting me from various low-brow threads. You must be really obsessed with me. That's pretty funny.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthropos View Post
Ad hominem? Where? I must contest this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthropos
Oh, hahaha, very funny. You are sooo cool. The doxophobic West rocks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthropos
For nutty historical revisionists, well... There are many of you here on The Apricity, so I will let you speak for yourselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthropos
Neither of you understand the difference between tradition and custom. There is no reason why I should continue to debate with you, when even the fundamentals of the discussion pass you by completely unnoticed. Please continue imagining things now. And this linking of things that are irrelevant is nothing but childish, Loddfafner.

Nodens:
You regularly seek to attack the credibility of your opponents while acting as though your claims may be taken as a given. Adopting an authoritative tone and casually dismissing dissenting arguments does not establish you as a credible party to the debate. Hence, the (valid) accusation of a lack of intellectual integrity. The only thing I'm having trouble understanding is why anyone here still considers it worthwhile to engage you on your own grounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthropos View Post
The exoteric part of a tradition, Christian or other, is its 'outer' part; that means the outward form of the applications, the social and moral aspects of it, and so on. The esoteric part is the 'inner' message and the initiatic aspects of it.

But you surely must have misunderstood something, because these two parts of a tradition taken together make up the tradition as a whole, and there is no sharp line between them.

Nodens:
And you continue to demonstrate my point.

[Nodens]

Okay, so now you are quoting me from various low-brow threads. You must be really obsessed with me. That's pretty funny.

Off Topic: Two of the quotes are to be found in the very thread this one was split from, the other is simply a particularly egregious example. If actually watching your argument style qualifies as an obsession, then what to say about your fascination with making noise at the non-Christians on this forum? And if the thread in question are 'low-brow', then high brow discussion does not exist on this forum.

On Topic: The basic assumption of the Traditionalist school is captured in the REH quote at the top of the thread. The belief that behind all initiatory Traditions is the same essential approach to the Ineffable. Christianity (or at least Gnostic Christianity) may therefore be regarded as only as another approach. Your insistence on regarding it as the definitive 'Truth' is not a Traditionalist view, but the tactic used amongst Christian Apologists to answer those who are troubled by the vast number of non-Christian components that have been amalgamated into Church history and doctrine. The view of the esoteric and the exoteric that you hold is likewise not a Traditionalist view, but an Orthodox Christian view. A proper Traditionalist view holds that the esoteric is the essence of Truth, while the exoteric is simply a form or guise for the uninitiated. Exoteric (Orthodox) Christianity is implicitly non-Traditionalist in that it (officially) minimizes or outright rejects Mysticism and esotericism (though folk Christianity often preserves these elements form pre-Christian Traditions and many Societies maintain initiatory rites and practices). Orthodox Christianity (and to an extent Islam), commit the error of reducing the Ineffable to the Effable (Gnosticism and Sufism are of course excepted).

[Anthropos]

Off Topic: Two of the quotes are to be found in the very thread this one was split from, the other is simply a particularly egregious example. If actually watching your argument style qualifies as an obsession, then what to say about your fascination with making noise at the non-Christians on this forum? And if the thread in question are 'low-brow', then high brow discussion does not exist on this forum.That doesn't make you any less obsessive. And there's no ad hominem anywhere in it.

The only reason why I was having the discussion with 'heathens' is that it concerns history. My business is not to preach to them. Besides, you should post that in the other thread, or make a complaint to a moderator if you are not happy with this split. Even if you are not saying anything offensive, you are the one who is arguing ad hominem as well.


On Topic: The basic assumption of the Traditionalist school is captured in the REH quote at the top of the thread. The belief that behind all initiatory Traditions is the same essential approach to the Ineffable.That is more than an assumption. In fact, it is not an assumption at all. It is based on suprarational appreciation of traditional texts. And even if some people like for example C. G. Jung took it to mean that these traditions have no claim to the ultimate truth themselves, each of them supposedly representing just a partial and flawed view, that is in itself a flawed conclusion.


Christianity (or at least Gnostic Christianity) ...There's no point in bringing up gnostic Christianity here unless you simply wish to cause another thread split. I will overlook this remark.


... may therefore be regarded as only as another approach. Your insistence on regarding it as the definitive 'Truth' is not a Traditionalist view, but the tactic used amongst Christian Apologists to answer those who are troubled by the vast number of non-Christian components that have been amalgamated into Church history and doctrine.All of the true traditions have in them absolute Truth. See my remark concerning Jung.


The view of the esoteric and the exoteric that you hold is likewise not a Traditionalist view, but an Orthodox Christian view.I am not a traditionalist, and neither was Guénon for that matter. There's a chapter dedicated to the traditionalist controversy in The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times.

And besides, you are somehow expecting that all I am saying should conform to your views, or to some ridiculous orthodox traditionalism.


A proper Traditionalist view holds that the esoteric is the essence of Truth, while the exoteric is simply a form or guise for the uninitiated.To say that it is 'just a guise' suggests that it is somehow flawed. While that may have been Evola's view, it was certainly not Guénon's view of the matter, and neither is it a logical conclusion.


Exoteric (Orthodox) Christianity is implicitly non-Traditionalist in that it (officially) minimizes or outright rejects Mysticism and esotericism (though folk Christianity often preserves these elements form pre-Christian Traditions and many Societies maintain initiatory rites and practices). Orthodox Christianity (and to an extent Islam), commit the error of reducing the Ineffable to the Effable (Gnosticism and Sufism are of course excepted).This is nonsense, but you can hold whatever views about it as you see fit. Neither I nor Orthodox Christianity nor Islam could care in the least.

[Nodens]

As much as I would like to hear your explanation as to Guénon's lifelong Sufism, it can serve no productive purpose.


The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few things they can use, soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the whole.

-Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims

And with that, I'm out.

[Poltergeist]

The worst readers are those who proceed like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few things they can use, soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the whole.

-Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims

Applicable to some "rationalists" as well.

[Anthropos]

As much as I would like to hear your explanation as to Guénon's lifelong Sufism, it can serve no productive purpose.



And with that, I'm out.

In the books I read, he didn't ever mention his conversion, even if opportunity was not failing (and I would much doubt that he mentioned it in any one of his books, since he did not write about himself). Also, he moved out of Europe to a location where Islam is firmly rooted, in line with his choice. I can only make conjectures as to his reason, even if one of his Swedish disciples has written about it. I read that account, but it wasn't too revealing. My guess is that Guénon did not like the antitraditional state of the West and wanted to escape it.

If you had read his books, you would know that he did not propagate Islam, and that he never made an argument against Christian tradition. In fact, he had only scorn for those self-declared Christians who deny the divinity of Christ.