Talk:Traditionalist School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Tautological
All authentic religious traditions are true sounds tautological to me —Ashley Y 06:58, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
[edit] Ken Wilber
To the best of my knowledge Ken Wilber refers a lot to the Philosophia Perennis and seems to support it. Shall he be mentioned in the article? Luis Dantas 29 June 2005 19:36 (UTC)
- No. To my knowledge, Wilber's never mentioned "the Traditionalist School". --goethean ॐ 18:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Leopold Ziegler
What about Leopold Ziegler? --195.4.151.116 13:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Radical Traditionalism
A few things. Could someone explain why it was decided to merge this article with the one on Radical Traditionalism? There ought to have been discussion of the proposed merger before anything got redirected, but apparently User:Sam Spade put up the {{merge}} templates earlier today, and effected the merger within 15 minutes, which seems to be against the spirit and letter of the policy at WP:MM. If I'd had a chance to comment, I'd have pointed out that they don't actually seem to be the same thing. The Traditionalists seem more like philosophers or anthropologists, while Radical Traditionalism, as I understand it, is very much an active movement. True, they have a single common member in Julius Evola, but this means that the groups are a full generation of thinkers apart. It's possible that they have a strong connection, and maybe even deserve to share an article, but I don't think there's sufficient commonality to justify merging the content completely. --Cantara 01:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Since there has been no response for two days, I'm going to separate the two articles again. If anyone wants to revisit the possibility of merging them, I hope that they will give other interested parties a chance to participate in the discussion. Questions can also be directed to my talk page. --Cantara 00:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The merging policy only requires discussion if the merging editor thinks there is uncertainty regarding the moves appropriateness. I had none. It seems you do however. I am going to revert this page to the post merge version, but will leave the Radical traditionalism page as is to see if you can make a case for its unique status. How familiar are you with these particulars? As best as I can tell the only difference between the two groups is Michael Moynihan, who may not have much to do with René Guénon or Julius Evola personally (he doesn't look old enough ;) They do have alot to do with each other however, as evidenced @ Julius_Evola. Sam Spade 06:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Moynihan is just one of many faces involved with Radical Traditionalism, Stephen McNallen, for example, is perhaps even better known than Moynihan. :bloodofox: 08:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. The two are sufficiently different to warrant two seperate articles. Most obviously, Radical Traditionalism is not about universalism - Quite the opposite. Merging the two articles has made this article into an absolute incoherent mess. Like Cantara, I've reverted the article to its pre-merge form. :bloodofox: 08:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
heh, no need for voting, if you feel they are distinct enough, I'll take your word on it. I'm not familiar with the tyr newsletter, McNallen or Moynihan, and simply assumed that having the same name, same Evola, and similar focus ment that they were closely related movements. Sam Spade 12:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to try and read Evola's Men Among the Ruins within the next week, or at least skim it. He seems to be the middleman for these two groups, and I should be able to get a sense of how much similarity there is between what inspired him and what he inspired. Sam Spade, you seem perhaps more knowledgable on the Traditionalist School. What, if anything, was their philosophy a reaction to? Evola is consciously reacting the the "liberal" revolutions of 1789 and 1848, while the Radical Traditionalists are in opposition more to the current state of things than any one force (or so it seems). I'm also considering writing either to Moynihan or to McNallen for advice about further reading (more because I'm interested, but also for the sake of clearing up this interesting question of intellectual geneology).
- For the moment, I think it's best to keep the articles as they are now (i.e. not equating the two as the intro to TS was doing a bit ago), but certainly to acknowledge the connection in the "See Also" sections. Cantara 20:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The traditionalist school is a rejection of modernist thought as well, but also of iconoclasm and religious divisions. It is perhaps best understood as mysticism, and an alternative from "new age" foolishness for those seeking greater spiritual depth. A good analogy is that the Traditionalist school is to new age as Ásatrú is to wicca. Similar on the surface to those with a shallow understanding based on the advertising of the latter, modernist trends, but possessed of very significant core differences of philosophy, practice and historicity. Sam Spade 21:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Neither the Traditionalism or Radical Traditionalism articles seem to be complete or particularly useful, and perhaps written from points of view within the philosophies. In particular, I find it odd that this article links to an attack on Sedgwick's book but doesn't actually discuss his findings in the body of the article; in this, it appears to violate NPOV. 03:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe the two articles should be merged and i beleive that there sould be explicit and not sanitized or buried information linking both branhs of traditionalistm with Fascism, Neo-Nazisim, and anti-Semitism. Catherineyronwode 00:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- What? You want to merge two totally seperate subjects because you feel that the article needs some sort of improvement or, even better, delete them entirely? They're two seperate movements from two totally seperate circles. If you can't muster up the effort to do a little research on your own, it's no problem of any who contributed to this article. What does Radical Traditionalism have to do with fascism or national socialism? Nothing whatsoever, it's at odds entirely with these political systems and this should be pretty obvious from the outset. :bloodofox: 01:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Radical traditionalism, Traditional School, and Fascism
Bloodfox, you have read what i wrote incorrectly. I did not propose to delete the Traditional School page. In fact, i even added to it today. Th Radical traditionalism page, however, is not up to par, in my opinion.
You also ask what Raditical Traditionalism has to do with Fascism, Nazism, and anti-Semitism. The answer is as clear as the nose on your face. From the talk:Radical Traditionalism article itself, i quote:
- Radical traditionalism takes its philosophical cue from philosophers such as Nietzsche, Georges Dumézil, Alain de Benoist and Julius Evola.
Please look up Julius Evola and you will see the connection; Evola supported italian Fascism, was employed by the Nazi SS, and promoted anti-Semitism. If the Radical traditionalist movement avows that it owes its thinking to Evola's precepts, it will logically share the affiliations he himself openly acknowledged.
Catherineyronwode 01:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. However, let's continue this discussion on the appropriate page. See: Talk:Radical Traditionalism
- :bloodofox: 04:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] nazi.org as a gathering place for Traditionalists?
The current edit of Libertarian National Socialist Green Party describes its website nazi.org as "a gathering place for Traditionalists [piped link to the article here] and adherents of thinkers such as Julius Evola and Savitri Devi." I have to wonder if editors here might have something to say about this. If this is accepted fact, perhaps this article should reference it. Samaritan 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please DO mention it! I think that there is quite a lot of use at Wiki of the term Traditional as a polite, sanitized cover for Neo-Fascist, neo-Nazi, and anti-Semitic thought. Catherineyronwode 00:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think "Traditionalist School" is a serious misnomer, as Guénon and Coomaraswamy, though contemporaries and admirers of each other's work, hardly constituted a 'school'. Coomaraswamy seriously disputed Guénon's repudiation of an authentic tradition in Buddhism (G. did later revise his view). I do not even think the two ever met. Schuon, a generation younger than the others, had a serious parting of ways with Guénon early on, and presented himself as head of a spiritual tariqa in the Sufi tradition. Guénon and Coomaraswamy never accepted disciples nor claimed any particular spiritual authority. It would be better to speak of 'perennialism', since they all do espouse the supremacy of a perennial philosophy. 'Traditionalism' already has a clear-cut reference in the world of Roman Catholicism. Indeed Catholic Traditionalists are usually quite averse to all that someone like Guénon stood for.
[edit] Magical idealism - need stub
Can anybody start a stub article on Magical idealism? Thanks. -- 201.51.221.66 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
