Talk:René Guénon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] NPOV

This article is mainly a paraphrasing of the first two listed sources (mostly the first). Most of these spend more time praising the man, sharing personal anecdotes about the man, or discussing the accepted details of his philosophies, rather than the person himself, due to their closely interested POV. I tried to exclude the POV stuff, or at least present it NPOVly.

This was a requested-for-one-year article, and I feel that what I put out will at least provide some explanation of the person, if not perfect.

Also, the book list is admittedly incomplete, and I'm at a loss to find dates of writing or publication for all of them (so I just left them out for now).

KeithTyler 00:10, May 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Feigned humility

"contrary to popular opinion, he was not the founder of any school of thought" This is just an utterly vacuous and unsupported piece of feigned humility.

This is not humility, feigned or not. Guenon never found any school of thought. Some people may acknowledge their intellectual orientation strongly oriented by Guenon's writings, but the fact is that he never found anything close to what is called a "school of thought". TwoHorned 15:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False statements corrected

Some false statements corrected:

  • "During the period of the 1920's, Guénon got marginally involved with the proto-fascist Action Francaise"... Guenon never got involved with Action Francaise, as it is written falsely. As a matter of fact, Guenon never got any connection with a political organization. The only thing is that Guenon commented some books of Leon Daudet. Chacornac's biography reads in fact like this (P.87 of the french edition):

"It does not seem doubtful that existed then, at some various degrees, some sympathy between Guénon and certain leaders of the Action Francaise. We say: at various degrees since it is quite clear for us that Daudet was, of all these leaders, the most capable of understanding Guénon and of admitting, at least partially, his viewpoints. It is nonetheless as evident that between Guénon and Mauras, the sympathy was mitigated".

  • The following sentence: "Guénon was increasingly influenced in his intellectual and political outlook by the extreme reactionary French Catholic philosopher and defender of the Inquisition, Joseph de Maistre, whom he often quotes positively in his various tomes" is utterly false. Guenon was never influenced by De Maistre. Guenon quoted him sometimes as a reference to someone who had a status in regular freemasonry, in relation with the 1648 treaty, which marked the terminal rupture between the West and certain esoteric ramifications which were still alive at that time. De Maistre is quite insignificant in Guénon's writings, and he his only quoted in reference to few historical events.
  • Regnabit was not "right-wing Catholical", it was a periodical that represented a mainstream Catholical perspective at that time.
  • "Guénon's writings on traditionalism had a great influence on the Italian fascist occultist Julius Evola" is another misleading sentence. Guenon and Evola exchanged correspondence but Guenon never indulged into Evola's political affiliations, nor he supported them. There is even a correspondence of Guénon in which he gives some indications of the relations between Mussolini's facist forces and a certain "dark masonry of completely irregular nature". Moreover, there was an important divergence between Evola and Guénon about some key doctrinal points.

The previous sentences (which I cancelled) contained quite a malicious intent as presenting Guenon from a political perspective.

TwoHorned 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Against hagiography on one part, against slander on the other

The above ‘correction’ is itself political, and one devoid of knowledge about the lineage of reactionary discourse. The claim that – somehow – the link between Guenon and Evola was ephemeral and unimportant is simply incorrect. Both were part of a much wider reaction – yes, reaction – against modernity, development and democracy, and each advocated a return to spiritual values and what they took to be innate forms of hierarchy (in Evola’s case, feudalism). Evola, who wrote an endorsing book about Guenon, profoundly influenced the thinking of the Italian new right. So, where the discourse of the political right is concerned, all this talk of Guenon-was-simply-an-innocent-bystander is quite simply untrue. 9 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.237.216 (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That Guenon-Evola link, as you mention it, is a commonplace refutated by recent studies. TwoHorned 22:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. What is ‘refutated’? Are we in the simian world of George W. Bush here, where Pakistan is Plakmanistan, and Palestine is Palistan? The Guenon-Evola link is one which Evola himself acknowledged, as is evident from what Evola himself wrote in Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul (Rochester, VT, 2003) and – wait for it – Rene Guenon: A Teacher for Modern Times (Sure Fire Press, 1994). If you reject the ideas of someone, you do not simultaneously characterized that person respectfully, as a ‘teacher’. 30 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.30.154 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 November 2007

'Refutated': see for instance "Julius Evola contre René Guénon by André Lefranc in Règle d'Abraham N°21" (in french). Evola acknowledged it, ok, but what about Guenon himself about that, dear dear ? TwoHorned 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone who doesn’t understand English very well seems to have missed the point entirely. Why do such people intervene, when the issue being discussed goes completely over their head? The attempt by simian followers of George W. Bush to deny a link between the rightwing politics of Evola and the rightwing politics of Guenon, in spite of an acknowledgement of just such a link by Evola himself, is ever so slightly pathetic. Or is it merely a case of someone who likes Guenon very much trying to pretend that the latter's politics are not as they are? No amount of denial by apologists for the political right will eradicate the recognition by one of their own - Evola - of where Guenon is to be situated on the political spectrum. 4 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.30.154 (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A follow-up to the last entry but one. Having looked at Règle d'Abraham, two things are clear. First, its ‘scholarly’ level is on a par with ‘analyses’ such as Erich von Daniken’s Chariot of the Gods and Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, and for much the same reason: a credulous and uncritical acceptance of the primacy, innateness and veracity of the esoteric. And second, the acceptance there in a 2003 article (Rene Guenon récupéré par l’extrême droit) of precisely the point made by me: the acceptability of Guenon’s views to the far right. Also of passing interest is the presence of an author who shares the same name – Taguieff – as someone prominent in those circles, although there is of course absolutely no inference of a connection between them. 4 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.30.154 (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1) Perhaps you should try to read Guenon first. Supporting these allegations by referring to Bush is somehow... weak and quite inapropriate. The divergence between Guenon and Evola was being emphasized by Guenon himself. And Guenon was not engaged in politics, as opposed to Evola. The Evola-Guenon relationship was completely orthogonal to Evola's political affiliations, being substantiated by considerations of a completely different order. 2) Regle d'Abraham, that you haven't read either except by browsing their titles on the web, has nothing to do with Von Daniken and al or Da V C. And the 2003 article of R.A., that you probably haven't read either, states the exact opposite of what you write here. Final point. AlexOriens (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I detect a certain amount of wriggling on a hook, an air of furious desperation on your part that someone has questioned a cherished belief. Unsurprisingly, every single thing you say is wrong. To begin with, you don’t know what I have or have not read, so your assertions about that are simply bluster. I did not say, as you appear to think, that von Daniken and Dan Brown are in some way connected with Règle d'Abraham: what I did say, and you missed, was that the ‘analyses’ of the latter, a coterie of Guenon Groupies (GGs), are on an ‘intellectual’ par with those of the former, not least because epistemologically they both subscribe to a credulous and uncritical acceptance of the primacy, innateness and veracity of the esoteric. Neither is it the case that the 2003 article ‘states the exact opposite’ of what I said it did. That you are wrong about this is because – again – you have misunderstood what I was saying: I did not say, as you also seem to think, that Guenon had somehow endorsed the far right. What I did say was that his views were acceptable to the far right, which is not the same thing at all. Those belonging to the far right would hardly endorse a view that was at odds with their beliefs: hence the political significance of finding in Guenon a kindred spirit. That Guenon was not himself engaged in politics is therefore entirely beside the point, since one doesn’t have to dress up in a Nazi uniform in order influence the thinking of those connected to the far right. No amount of blustering and fury on your part will alter the incontrovertibility of the link I (and others) have made in this regard: Guenon, a deeply reactionary traditionalist, strongly influenced the ultra-right conservative Evola, who in turn not only subscribed to far-right views in the era of Italian fascism, but also himself influence the new Italian right during the post-war era. Whether you like it or not, Guenon is part of this discourse, and the references both to Bush and to his simian qualities are in the circumstances quite appropriate. 6 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.30.154 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, to say the least and to match common boundaries of usual politeness, I doubt that arguments that put into the balance the whole field of "esoterism", in the sense redefined by Guenon himself, and author like Dan Brown along with his DVC are likely to shake the intellectual foundations of any reader of René Guénon... More seriously, it is true that some rightist movements (and authors like Evola) may pretend some intellectual heritage from "traditionnalism", and they may reclaim Guénon for that. What you forget to mention is that the same is true for far-leftists (à la Monzat), left or right-wing christians, "liberal" or "traditionnalist" political muslim movements, some jewish writers (even Jacques Attali mentions Guénon in his last book -what a farce !-) etc. I'm afraid that you miss the whole colourful scenery of people and movements, be they politically oriented or not, that pretend heritage from Guenon in France and Italy (to take most known examples). These people and movements indulge in referring to Guenon not because Guenon displayed any political or intellectual sympathy that would match their own agenda, but because they believed to find in the doctrine exposed by Guenon some intellectual keys that would substantiate their own beliefs (be they of "conspiracist" nature or anything else). Guenon's positions were strongly thrown out by Action Francaise, who utterly disliked Guenon's admiration for the East and Eastern doctrines. Evola and Guenon share some views in their condamnation of the modern world, but their perspective was not the same at all, and the divergence between them was clearly expressed by Guenon, mostly when the latter wrote some critics of the former's books. The main divergence between Guenon and Evola was about the pre-eminence of contemplation over action, and Guenon firmly condemned the rightist movements that put Mussolini into power (this is mainly documented in french, but not perhaps in english, which could explain, I suppose, your confusions on that matter). Lastly, about R.A., its list of authors contains people as diverse as university researchers, philosophers, directors of research at CNRS etc. TwoHorned (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear, you are still wriggling on a hook, with even more desperation than before. Furthermore, you have changed your tack. Now you admit – finally – that a Guenon-far right epistemological link exists, but try to whitewash this by claiming – implausibly – that Guenon is acceptable as well to those on the left. What this nonsense confirms is two things. First, that – as I suspected – political theory is for you a closed book. And second, that – again as I suspected – your ‘arguments’ are indeed on an intellectual par with Erich von Daniken and Dan Brown. The political lineage to which Guenon belongs is, it seems, clear to everyone except Guenon Groupies. Like Spengler, de Maistre and Barres, Guenon was part of a retreat from all the processes and views – a materialist interpretation of history, modernity, economic progress and political equality – that those on the left espouse. Indeed, this retreat is embodied in his book, The Crisis of the Modern World. That any socialist or Marxist would endorse such views – the traditionalist, anti-materialist views and religious determinism of Guenon – is to put it very mildly an unlikely occurrence. The acceptability of his views is, much rather, to one particular end of the political spectrum: those reactionaries on the far right, such as Action Française and Julius Evola. Even the British New Right cite Guenon approvingly (see Roger Griffin, ed., Fascism, 1995, page 353). To cap it all, your language – when it is not incoherent – gives away the game: why else mention the ethnic origin of an author (‘some jewish writers’)? Shades here, perhaps, of an old discourse: Dreyfus... 10 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.30.154 (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor fellow... you finally decided to stake out your intellectual territory. TwoHorned (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor old TwoHorned: you’ve been gored – twice – and understandably feel sore. Also, you still can’t spell: the word you want is ‘calumny’, not calomny. You use of the latter term – when corrected – is, moreover, wrong (predictably so). To calumniate someone – shall I go more slowly, so you can follow: c-a-l-u-m-n-i-a-t-e – what is said has to be false: it isn’t. I have simply pointed out the inaccuracies in the claims you make on Guenon’s behalf, maintaining as you do (wrongly) that his views are unconnected with those of the political right, and that anyway are endorsed by those on the left. As I’ve indicated, neither of these statements is true, and – moreover – could only be made by someone for whom political theory is a closed book. 24 December 2007 - (Posted 24 December 2007 by 81.155.186.21 - - Writtenonsand (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

Quite a small mispelling coming from a word in my mother tongue -french- "calomnie" which should translate as "slander". No surprise you overfocus -in your typical narrow-minded and contrite style- on a small detail to hide the abyssal weakness of your "arguments". At least french language gave me the opportunity to read Guenon in full, in its original version, and all his commentaries, which are not available in english. And, last point, if a Guenon - far right "link" exists supposedly, it is advocated by the far right only, so its epistemological value is dubious. Elementary philosophy seems definitely a closed topic for you. And, I repeat, a similar Guenon - far left link can also be pointed out, so as for the nullity of such concepts w.r.t. Guenon's writing per se. The "political" aspects of some Guenon writings are connected with Guenon's meta-historical perspective and are quite unrelated with these accusations, which are very popular in certain milieux -some of them emanating from these wonderful neocons you pretend depart from a la Victor David Hanson. Go back to your political theory -or to Fox News-. TwoHorned (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I really am beginning to feel very sorry for you, twisting as you are on the hook. Three points are inescapable. First, the kind of ‘arguments’ you make in defence of Guenon make Erich von Daniken and Dan Brown seem towering intellects by comparison. To take just one example: you repeat – yet again – that a Guenon/far-right link is invalid because it is acknowledged by the far right only. This is, I’m afraid to say, quite simply nonsense on stilts. The far right incorporates into its political discourse only such ideas and/or views that are compatible with a far-right belief system. As has been pointed out above, were it the case that Guenon’s philosophy was in some fundamental sense incompatible with the beliefs of the far right, those in the latter category would most certainly not cite it in a supportive manner, let alone invoke Guenon as a validation of their claims. That the far right – in Italy (via Evola) and Britain – has in fact endorsed Guenon as a kindred spirit speaks volumes about where he is to be found on the political spectrum, a fact that no amount of denial on your part will alter. I know you must find this very awkward – an ‘inconvenient truth’, as the saying goes – but sadly for you it is so. Second, and arising from this, your rather odd assumption that a critique of Guenon can only come from neocons is similarly misplaced. Those on the left, who oppose the traditionalist, anti-materialist views and religious determinism of Guenon, are also critical of his views, but for very different reasons. Since you do not understand political theory, and seem to be obtuse, this will necessarily elude you. And third, you ‘defence’ of Guenon in the face of evidence to the contrary underlines what is now a major difficulty with this kind of wikipedia entry. The latter have become spaces colonized by enthusiasts belonging to particular cults – such as that of Guenon – who propagate opinions that are either ill-informed or wrong (usually both). Rather like worshippers guarding a medieval shine, these enthusiasts – flat earthers all – devotedly continue to proclaim their beliefs in a shrill manner (‘the earth is flat, the earth is flat’), and refuse to countenance alternative views, let alone acknowledge that they themselves are wrong. So much for the much-vaunted accuracy of information contained on wikipedia. 26 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.186.21 (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

From a strict epistemological perspective, it would be necessary to establish the link you pretend to mention from Guenon's writings themselves, and not from opinions emanating from dubious milieux, be they left or right. That would be quite an unlikely project, for such confirmations do not exist. Let me explain you, if you will, the necessary distinctions to be made in these matters. Guenon's criticism of "democracy" is not an approval of non-democratic systems in the modern sense, both of them being equally anti-traditionnal from Guenon's standpoint (he specifically mentionned that point in his correspondence, a fact that I report for the secund time here and that you blindly eliminate without mention). Guenon opposes modern politics to systems of governance that are legitimated from a traditionnal point of view, his most explicit book on that matter is "Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power". Such "traditionnal systems of governance" may take different forms in the social organization, they can be contemplated, according to Guenon's, only in a truly traditionnal system. For Guenon, all modern political systems, be they democratic or not, are equally antitraditionnal. Besides, the link you try to establish comes from the admiration of some far-right organizations to Evola. It is true that Guenon and Evola exchanged some letters, and that Evola quotes easily Guenon, but you forget to mention the most importing point: there is a fundamental divergence between Guenon and Evola, that was underlined precisely by Guenon himself, and which translates into political matters in the following form: for Evola, Kshatriyas are superior to Brahmanes in hierarchy, for Guenon it is the exact opposite. This fundamental divergence is precisely the starting point of all serious studies -and I pointed one above - that question your unlikely supposition -so far as it is considered today as a commonplace as I stated above-. That Julius Evola quotes Guenon is not sufficient to establish an epistemological link since Evola silenced all his political and metaphysical divergences with Guenon - we need their correspondence for that-. Evola's admiration for "action" degenerated so far that he finally endorsed, after Guenon's death, Crowlesian's magic, which was viewed by Guenon as charlatanism and abomination -do you see the link with O.T.O. and the far-right, and do you finally understand how Guenon was opposed to that ?- I am surprised that you read the following sentence of my answer - I repost it here : some of them emanating from these wonderful neocons you pretend depart from- into : "your rather odd assumption that a critique of Guenon can only come from neocons is similarly misplaced". Lastly, your gratuitous accusation that I would be a guardian of Guenon's temple is quite innapropriate, sounds like bluster, and is not adding any proof in favour of your viewpoint. I agree with you that Wikipedia is colonized by blind enthusiasts. But that's probably because many tend to pour in opinions, instead of serious references. TwoHorned (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC

Ah, the guardian of the sacred shrine to Guenon – a faithful and unquestioning Guenon Groupie – remains on permanent duty, proclaiming his erudition (‘the world is flat, the world is flat’) to all who approach. Somewhat predictably, your claims become ever more confused, your ‘answers’ ever more incoherent, and your actions ever more desperate. For someone who thinks of himself as a ‘philosopher’, you do have an unfortunate tendency to keep on contradicting yourself: first, you deny the existence of a Guenon/Evola/far-right link; then you accept that there is one, but try unsuccessfully to maintain that there is also a Guenon/socialist link; and now, once again, you revert to the earlier position and deny that any such link exists. Logic seems to be for you a foreign country. Your desperation is evident from, for example, the attempt to argue that because they disagreed on who was placed where in the traditional hierarchy, this somehow amounts to a vindication of the view that Guenon’s ideas are unconnected with the discourse of the political right. This is rather like saying that the fact that Hitler spoke German and Mussolini Italian is evidence for there being no link whatsoever between Nazi and Fascist ideology! Equally predictable is the fact that you have undermined your argument without realizing it. All rightwing thought has at the centre of its discourse the necessity of protecting tradition, not least because this is the way those who have large amounts of power and property justify such inequality: hence the word ‘conservatism’, which means maintaining what is. This is especially the case when rapid socio-economic change erodes what those on the far right regard as historically immutable components of social existence: culture, nature, hierarchy, family and religion. No wonder that Evola found Guenon’s ideas so congenial: the latter’s view – endorsing tradition, opposing progress and modernity – is the theoretical seedbed from which the political right draws its ideological strength. For Guenon, it seems, the invention of the wheel was a step too far, and his ideas about the importance of tradition and opposition to modernity are in keeping with conservative discourse during the 1920s and 1930s. A case in point is G.K. Chesterton, the Catholic writer who blamed the Reformation for the rise of what he regarded as the subsequent evils: liberalism, capitalism and communism. All the latter were in his view the consequence of materialism, a misplaced desire for progress and a consequent turning away from spiritualism. His cousin, A.K. Chesterton, shared this perception about societal decadence and cultural decline, so much so that he became involved in and remained a central figure of the far right in Britain. Finally, problems with language, which you misinterpret as points-scoring, are actually central to this exchange: what you write, and the way you express yourself, suggest that you really do not seem to understand what is being discussed. Hence the difficulties which surface in the following construction: ‘I am surprised that you read the following sentence of my answer - I repost it here: some of them emanating from these wonderful neocons you pretend depart from- into: "your rather odd assumption that a critique of Guenon can only come from neocons is similarly misplaced".’ The suggestion in the first part – yours – is indeed that my critique comes from the political right; the second part – mine – says precisely this – that you think (wrongly) the critique I make is one coming from the political right. Such flawed understanding shows that you have missed – fundamentally – what is being said, a difficulty compounded by political theory being for you a closed book. Whilst in general I enjoy discussing political theory, I do assume a general level of competence on the part of those with whom I engage in debate. The latter condition, unfortunately, seems to be lacking where your ‘arguments’ are concerned: the impression you give is that a convincing argument consists of repeating something over and over again. It doesn’t. 31 December 2007 -- (Posted 31 December 2007 by 81.155.186.21 -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

You're loosing it: I was underlining your reading of my "some of them" into your quite strange "can only come". You might understandably assume some level of competence from your counterpart; I'm just assuming, on my side, that my counterpart can read. Not to mention elementary logic. TwoHorned (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

To all Wikipedia contributors: Please familiarize yourself with and follow Wikipedia:Civility - at its most basic:
" Participate in a respectful and civil way. ... Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. "
Wikipedia:Civility is an offical policy of Wikipedia (i.e., not optional.) Even conduct listed under "Petty examples" is not acceptable. If you are unable to follow the guidelines in this policy, then you should avoid editing Wikipedia articles or posting to Wikipedia Talk pages. There are many other venues on which your posts will be welcome.

Remember: Theoretically, this is an encyclopedia. Let's strive for professionalism. "But he started it!" is not a valid excuse.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evola and Guenon

http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=21

In an interview conducted in the mid 1960s—Julius Evola: A Justified Pessimism—Evola provided a précis of his life's work. He answered all the questions very simply and it demonstrates how little his ideas changed in the preceding 40 years. This is how he answered the question about the influence of Guénon on his work:

Q In your book Il Cammino del Cinabar, where you laid out the genesis of your works, you acknowledged that the principal defender of the traditional worldview, Réné Guénon, exercised a certain influence over you, to the point that you have been called the "Italian Guénon". Is there a perfect correspondence between your thought and Guénon's? And don't you believe, concerning Guénon, that certain circles overrate Oriental philosophy?

A My orientation does not differ from Guénon's insofar as it concerns the value attributed to the World of Tradition. By the World of Tradition, we mean an organic and hierarchical civilisation in which all activities are oriented from above and are based on values that are not simply human values. Like Guénon, I wrote different works on traditional wisdom, studying their sources directly. The first part of my principal work, Revolt against the Modern World, is precisely a morphology of the world of tradition. There is also a correspondence between Guénon and me concerning the radical critique of the modern world. On this point, there are however some divergences between us. Given his "personal equation", in traditional spirituality Guénon assigned knowledge and contemplation ahead of action; he subordinated the royal to the sacerdotal. I, on the other hand, have endeavoured to present and emphasise the traditional legacy from the point of view of the warrior caste and to show the possibilities equally offered by the way of action. A consequence of this different point of view is that, while Guénon employs an intellectual elite as the base for the possible reconstruction of Europe, as far as I'm concerned, I am more inclined to speak of an order. The judgments that Guénon and I give to Catholicism and Freemasonry also diverge. I believe, however, that Guénon's formulation is not situated on the path of Western man, who is, in spite of everything, oriented especially toward action.

--- END ANSWER

This leaves no doubt that there is profound agreement between the two thinkers, both on the nature of Traditional societies and their quarrels with the contemporary world. What is omitted are the Traditional teachings on the primordial tradition, the primordial state, the constitution of man as spirit/soul/body, the four phases of the cosmic cycle, and so on. But a careful reading shows that their "divergences" do not represent an insurmountable opposition, but rather reflect the same thing from a different point of view.

While Guénon holds that the primordial tradition takes different forms in different eras and cultures, he does not account for those differences. Evola goes a step further with his concept of the "race of the spirit", such that a form that is suitable for one race may not be for another race.

The other divergence is related to the castes and the different spiritual stances appropriate to each one. Thus, Guénon describes the contemplative type of spirituality proper to the sacerdotal caste and Evola describes the one proper to the warrior caste. Their only difference, then, is the question of which one should be dominant. Once again, this can be resolved by the "race of the spirit": the Eastern races are dominated by the spirit of contemplation and the Western race by the spirit of action. This is all consonant with cosmic law, and is represented by the teachings of Taoism, which Evola valued highly.

Bear in mind that what Evola means by action is more like the wei-wu-wei of Taoism—action/non-action—and not the frenzied activity of the modern world that was represented by Futurism, an artistic movement that Evola in his youth was associated with, but seems to have left behind. Evola ends his answer on this note:

"Unfortunately, what characterises the modern European world is not action but its falsification, that is, an activism deprived of a foundation that is limited to the domain of purely material productions. They are detached from heaven under the pretext of conquering the earth, to the point of no longer knowing what action truly is." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.48.146 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Evola talks of convergence only about what he calls "the World of Tradition", by that he seems to mean the general values and social ambiance of traditional societies. This is only quite a small part of Guenon's work, a work that primarily focuses on the metaphysical doctrine. You also forget to mention that Evola's political involvement with fascist forces, probably the most distinctive part of a supposedly Guenon-Evola alliance from a political point of view, was clearly condemned by Guenon. So, what does remain ? A common perspective of the negative aspects of the modern world ? That's for sure, but this is quite insignificant compared to the wideness of Guenon's work, and the subjects he developped. Their divergence about action and contemplation is not an easy one: for Guenon "contemplation" is nothing else than "Knowledge", i.e. the metaphysical doctrine itself. The concept of "race of spirit" has absolutely no meaning in Guenon's perspective. TwoHorned (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are repeating the same old mantra ‘the world is flat, the world is flat’ that was addressed and disposed of above. What Evola and Guenon share with the political right is their attempt to recuperate tradition. It is really that simple. 6 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.117.174 (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, what's really simple is this: Guénon rejected modernity in the whole. Everything relating to it. Everything! If we don't understand this, we don't understand about what his conservatism really was. What's included in his rejection? Among other things, both current progressism and current conservatism. Why? Because what a modern day conservative believes is nothing more than what a 19th century progressist believed. It became "conservatism" only because progressists went forward in their denial of tradition, not because the old school progressists recognized they were wrong and went back to more traditional ways. What about the 19th century conservatives then, the defenders of absolute monarchy? Nope, sorry, that's modernity also, since absolute monarchy is nothing more than what the 16th century progressists believed in. For you to find anything in Western history towards which Guénon would give a thumbs up, you'd have to go as far as the 12th or 11th centuries, and even so, for him it'd still be a somewhat degraded political arrangement, as he'd see in them the seeds of later decadence.
Regarding Evola, he might have believed he was a full blown traditionalist, I don't know, but the fact is that he subscribed fascism, which is a purely modernistic political belief. To bring back tradition by employing the full set of post-Machiavellian politics? Including revolution? All under the banner of the also modern concept of nation states? Utter nonsense. Guénon would have nothing to do with it. Conservatives and "far-righters" who see themselves as somehow within the scope of tradition are just deceiving themselves. That they don't realize this to be the case, and persevere in pursuing their illusions of restoring a 19th or 18th century-style decadence in place of the 21st century-style one we have is just one more sign of how far into the kaly yuga we are. -- alexgieg (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
PS.: Moved down and slightly updated. -- alexgieg (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project boxes

I've added the Philosophy project box, marking this article as being handled by the Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion, Philosophers and Contemporary philosophy task forces (of which I'm a member). Contemporary both because Guénon lived in the Contemporary Age, and there's no going around it, but also because, even though he defends tradition against Modernity, he does so from the perspective of someone who passed through it, looked back and didn't like what he saw, thus from a (literal) post-modern outlook.

Still about the Philosophy box, I classed the article as Start level, since there's still a lot to be added to the description of Guénon's (or "the Perennial", as both are valid since a NPOV article cannot prefer one classification over the other) critique of modernity, to "his" Metaphysics, and about his take on Mathematics. Also, since the Sophia Perennis is a very specialized field of both Philosophy and Comparative Religion, not to mention the fact it's meant to be for an intellectual elite only, not for the general public, I've set its priority as Low.

As for the Biography box, I think it has a good overall view of Guénon's life, but a lot must be said yet, thus B class. And since Guénon's influence is widespread, being not only a leading specialist in the field of comparative religion but also influential among lots of other fields, including politics, I set his importance as High.

By the way: as I'm not a member of the France project, I didn't touch its box. But from the project's Assessment page my guess is that the importance would be High, as Guénon would surely appear not only on a France-specific printed encyclopedia, but on a general printed encyclopedia as well. As far as the description of Guénon's relation to French intellectual landscape, though, the article is bare, and I'd class it as Stub. If someone reading this is in the France project and thinks this reasoning is valid, please make the appropriate changes.

As far as the Islam project goes, I also know that Guénon was a very important Sufi master in Egypt, called sheik by everyone who mattered there, with his works being studied in Islamic philosophy courses (I entered one once, and his texts were in the reading list), but that's it. But the article says nothing about this. So, I'd rate it as High and class it as Stub. So, the same I said for the France box applies. If someone apt to edit it agrees with me, please do so. -- alexgieg (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project on René Guénon

is a project intending at presenting a detailed exposition of René Guénon's work and bio. I will start soon, paragraph per paragraph. Any comments are welcome. English is not my mother language so please don't hesitate to correct any bad sentence I could write. Thanks. TwoHorned (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've completed the first sections. TwoHorned (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The question of the adequacy, pertinence, and relevance of the notion referred to as "Traditionnalist school" is now openly debated and criticized in France. This should appear in the article, in the "Criticism" section. Il will put soon all the info about this debate in the article. TwoHorned (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Some points:
  • Instead of a Guénon project, a broader Traditionalism one would be better. Over time it could develop into a task force of WikiProject Philosophy, and then into a full fledged portal.
  • It's not appropriate to do a full exposition of each of his books in his biography article itself. Rather, each one of his main books should have a one paragraph description with a linking to an article explaining the book in details.
  • The article, will this much empty stub sections, is hard to follow. I suggest you only add the sections when they're ready.
  • I don't think I agree with the changes you made to the infobox (disclaimer: I'm the one who added it). First, the school entry is mandatory for a philosopher infobox, otherwise it shows it's missing, and Guénon mas in fact a follower of those listed, not to mention the founder of the Traditionalist one. Second, "metaphysics" (in the header) isn't a region. It's either Western philosophy, Eastern philosophy, or both. Third, even though one might not like Evola much, he was one of the major figures influenced by Guénon, so he should appear in the "influenced" section. Fourth, Guénon had many more influences than the three you maintained in the box. Keeping only these three doesn't make justice either to Guénon's works, or to those authors. So, evidently, I suggest we revert the box to the way it was. :-) But I'd like to read your comments before I proceed doing that.
That's it, basically. -- alexgieg (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello alexgieg. I answer you points as they appear:
  • The relation of Guénon to whats is called "Traditionnalist school" is now an openly debated question in some intellectual milieux in France. See for instance Esprit, February 2007, the review done by Daniel Lindenberg. Guenon never mentionned nor promoted any "Traditionnalist school". Even Antoine Faivre is now extremely careful about using the word, mostly because of the political misunderstandings put forth by Sedgwick. So attaching the word to Guenon is debatable.
  • There is no exposition of his books in the bio, instead, four of his books are used to describe the core of the metaphysical doctrine, but not in the bio. I'll put them soon, you'll get a better idea.
  • Ok for the stub sections. I put the titles to trigger any reactions.
  • About the infobox, I didn't agree on its previous state. As a matter of fact, scholarly studies have very few debated about Guénon, because of his firm departure from the university. He main biograph, Paul Chacornac, states firmly that no scholar label applies to him. And, Guenon states firmly that he is not a philosopher. May be we can discuss about that because it's a real issue.
  • About Evola, please have a look of the Esprit article I pointed out.
Of course, I'm open to any discussion. Tell me what you think. Thanks. TwoHorned (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no access to French sources, much less to the French language (with which I struggle), so unfortunately there's no way I could look at your references. In any case, I can see that it might be difficult to label Guénon as a Traditionalist (in the sense of a school of thought) when he himself didn't explicitly do so, but as far as he said he was "exposing tradition", it could be applied to him in the sense that he was the initiator of the movements (plural) that spread from this exposition, such as Schuon's own Religio Perennis.

As for the infobox and Guénon's status as a philosopher, there's no denying that he was a realist (as in, defender of the traditional metaphysical outlook in opposition to the proto-modern, modern and contemporaneous approaches such as nominalism, rationalism, empiricism, idealism etc.), that he was a neoplatonist (explicitly so, as he defends the concept of hypostatical emanations from the Absolute), that he was a systematic anti-dualist, that he dwelt in the philosophical problems of the infinitesimal calculus, inclusively bringing up the way Leibniz discussed them, that he specifically criticized (in rigorous philosophical fashion) this and that philosophical view while defending a distinct solution, and so on and so forth. Guénon might have despised the academic world of his time, but his books are written in a philosophical mood, and thus are de facto philosophical books, if for no other reason that metaphysics, even of the Neoplatonic kind, is still a field of Philosophy. Thus, the best I can come with is that he spoke of himself as not being a philosopher as meaning he wasn't a philosopher in the same sense that academics from Philosophy departments all around are philosophers. Because it simply isn't possible to take what he wrote and accept his own opinion that it isn't philosophy without, in the same movement, removing from the field everyone who worked on it before the 13th century. If Guénon wasn't a Philosopher, neither were Plato or Plotinus, and this really makes no sense.

About Evola, it's easy: either he was influenced by Guénon's works, even if he later went against them; or he wasn't. If he was influenced, it doesn't matter whether he later went against it, his name still fits in the "influenced" field, much like Aristotle's name fits into Plato's influenced list, Occam's into Aquinas's, Nietzsche's into Schopenhauer's, the Frankfurtians' into Nietzsche's etc. The influenced can go completely against who influenced him that he'll still have been influenced by him. So, if Evola was influenced by Guénon he should be mentioned there. If we only list who was in full or almost full accord with Guénon, it won't be a NPOV list.

By the way: I noticed you removed the entry about Guénon being interested in Occultism. This isn't accurate either. He was a member of Papus' Gnostic Church in his youth, and even though he left occult practices behind pretty early, his first books were thoroughly critical analysis of occult movements, mostly Theosophy, and he remained for all his life interested in Masonry. So, it's no denying he was interested in Occultism, even if mostly as one of its main enemies. -- alexgieg (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello alexgieg. I would see no objection for replacing "metephysics" by "philosophy" in the infobox, but there are many difficulties about this kind of classification in the case of Guenon. Guenon stated firmly that he was not a philosopher (see for instance ITSHD, part II, Man and his becoming..., foreword, etc.) Guenon departed from scholar studies. In return, the university didn't get interested by Guenon very much. One of the few scholars that studied Guenon, J.-P. Laurant from EPHE in Paris, does not mention Guenon as a philosopher.
Now on "perenialism", the term was introduced, before 1995, by specialists in comparative religion to make some distinctions about various notions linked to "esoterism" (cf. Antoine Faivre et Karen Claire Voss, Numen 42, 1995, pp. 75-76). However, Faivre recognizes that the word has two distinct significations (cf Western esotericism and the science of religion, Antoine Faivre et Wouter J. Hanegraaf eds. Peeters, p. 9). Wouter J. Hanegraaf (Western esotericism and the science of religion, p. 26) refers in preference to Schuon than Guenon about "perenialism". R. Fabbri notes that the situation has become even more confuse since the works of Sedgwick, who associates the notion to reactionary movements, of which Evola was a representative, but not Guenon. Articles in the english wikipedia are very confuse on these matters.
Evola was certainly influenced by Guenon, but not on the political side. Guenon never engaged into politics.
I also strongly doubt that we can refer to Guenon about "realism" in the philosophical sense. Guenon was certainly not neither a platonist nor a neo-platonist: he mentionned at many times the limitations of greek thought on questions that go beyond ontology.
The question of the "influences" on Guenon is quite complicated and difficult. I can give a few references if you want, to make you understand all the complexities of the subject.
About occultism, please read what I wrote in the beginning of the bio. Guenon's entry in the occultist milieux has been commented by himself: ("I've gone in the Gnosis milieux only to destroy them"). It's certainly innacurate to describe Guenon as influenced by Occultism: he himself wrote that he had the intention to write a book entitled "The occultist fallacy", but he finally resigned after having drawn the conclusion that french occultism had completely disappeared. His passage in the occultist milieux is now well documented: Guenon entered the occultist milieux to: 1) draw towards him the best individuals (Barlet, Gaita, Champrenaud, Pouvourville etc. 2) use it as a plateform to begin his publications 3) to gather information about pseudo-initiatic movements. Since the begining, his writings were completely opposite to occultism. TwoHorned (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

alexgieg, I've updated the infobox to take into account your remarks. TwoHorned (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! I was in the middle of writing the reply below when I hit "save page" and saw an edit conflict (your update above). I'm posting what I wrote as is. So, sorry if you've already changed the infobox in a way I "argued" about below. :-)
So, here we go. By the way: I'm numbering the different subject topics to make things clearer.
1) I guess the problem lies in the following distinction: if we understand "Philosophy" to mean what people in Philosophy departments at recognized universities do, then I'll agree with Guénon that he wasn't a philosopher. If, on the other hand, we understand "Philosophy" as being the huge field of study where philosophers try to reach conclusions about reality through discursive reasoning (more specifically, through dia-logoi), with "Academic Philosophy" being but a subset of it, then Guénon clearly made philosophy, even though his works go beyond it quite frequently.
I think what's important here is to distinguish an author terminology from the way the words are used outside his works. Guénon redefines many words. "Philosophy" is one among those. "Intellect", "metaphysics", "tradition" are others. That's why it doesn't help to say of him that he wasn't a "philosopher", that he was an "intellectual", drawing from his own terminology. It isn't the same as everyone else's, so using it doesn't carry meaning to those who don't already know his work.
2) As for the word "traditionalism", I think the reverse reasoning applies. See: I agree that the word "traditionalism" is ambiguous, with very diverging meanings. But so is the word "phenomena", and that didn't prevent the very specific concept of "phenomenology" to develop and this word to hold its ground in front of the diverging meanings of the root word. Since the notions of tradition and sophia perennis are central to Guénon's thinking, it only makes sense to use them as the basis for an umbrella -ism or -logy. Particularly, I favor "perennialism", but what I find around is a consensus forming around "traditionalism". In any case, I can see how things might be more confusing in Europe, where Evola has an actual following, than they are here in Brazil, where he's almost a side note and people speak almost solely about Guénon, Schuon, Guénon and Schuon, and Guénon vs. Schuon. So, I have no problem admitting this perception of mine might not be valid for English-speaking countries.
Let's move to a more concrete realm to see if things become clearer. What do "Guénon-only" followers call themselves in USA and UK? What about "Guénon + Schuon" ones? And "Evola + someone else" followers?
3) The "influenced" line in the infobox isn't about politics, but about a more general "intellectual influence" (in the non-guénonian meaning of the word, of course). Evola's involvement with fascism doesn't erase the intellectual influence Guénon had in his works. More, Evola's politics doesn't erase his merits as an intellectual, much like Heidegger's involvement with Nazism. Add both reasons and you'll see how Evola should indeed be mentioned there.
4) Notice that Guénon saying that Greek thought is limited in questions beyond ontology implies that they were quite okay in questions about ontology. Sure, for Guénon you have on one side ontology, which deals with being, meaning with duality and multiplicity, i.e., what we experience through perception and reason; and on the other (or, rather, as the whole in relation to the part), the Above-Being, reachable through non-dual intellection alone. But as far as he does accept ontology, for example when describing the multiple states of being, he's a realist. There's no other name for this set of concepts.
5) I'd be interested in the references on his influences, provided I can access them online. I'm really not on a position to access printed references. :-(
6) The notion that Guénon entered occult circles to wreak havoc on them is quite interesting. If true, it's a very clever strategy. But notice that I didn't say Guénon was influenced by occultism, only that he was interested in it (the entry was in this infobox's field, not in the former). These are very different things. The typical militant atheist, for example, is "interested in" religion, even though in a purely negative fashion. Similarly, Guénon's "interest in" occultism would of the same kind, and thus should be listed there. -- alexgieg (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
1) OK. I changed the infobox to reflect that, I think we agree on it now.
2) There are different points here. A word like phenomena does indeed have different meanings, but one first problem with "traditionalism" is that the word designates first some movements that Guenon opposed strongly (see the chapter on traditionalism in "The reign of quantity..."). It's not like different meanings of a same word, it's like opposite significations. "Perennialism" is a word more recently introduced w.r.t. Schuon's views, and which is semantically applied to subjects related to some divergent points between Guenon and Schuon. I think the word is more commonly used in the anglo-saxon world, but there is a real debate on the accuracy and pertinence on this qualification w.r.t. Guenon. Making a statement in an infobox is quite non-neutral. Guenon never used the word "perenialism" nor "sophia perennis" in any of his articles and books. Guenon speaks of the "Primordial Tradition", a subject that is pervasive in some esoteric scriptures from the anciant times, but which has never been clarified in a formal way. And for a good reason: the subject is by itself meta-historical and mythological. In other words, symbolic, as the general notion of "centre" can be. There is no writing of Guenon asserting the fundamental identity between El Din Al Fitrah and the Sanatana Dharma, although any reader of Guenon will suspect a same esoterical meaning. About your concrete question, of course anyone can declare himself "guenonian" as well as "heideggerian" or "marxist" or anything else. The important point is that Guenon stated firmly that he did not create any school of thought. The "perenialism" word is dubious, and I'm not sure it will survive long.
3)OK, but the influence of Guenon on Evola was precisely on the "non political" aspect. For anything else related to "action" and "knowledge", Evola and Guenon diverge firmly. I think I modified the infobox already, so we can say Guenon influenced Evola.
4) Of course not. Denying or ignoring non-manifestation lead to naturalism or pantheism, and Guenon was not in that realm.
5) I included a section in my plan. I'll provide some interesting refs there.
6) This is true indeed, and can be referenced. All the things about OTR are quite enigmatic. Guenon's interest in occultism does not mean an intelectual interest, but something of a more "strategic" nature. Just have a look on his position as an anonymous writer in an anti-masonic journal while asserting the true esoteric nature of free-masonnry: he was there to gather inforamtion about Leo Taxil, among other things. Sedgwick never understood that, but there are many refs on that subject, I'll provide them in the redaction of the article. Best wishes. TwoHorned (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Replying:

1) Well, you wrote "metaphysics and philosophies". For the typical reader, it sound like a strange distinction of part and whole, like saying "karate and martial arts". I'd take only philosophies, but for the sake of completeness, how about "philosophies and esotericisms"?

2) Okay, I see your point and I have to agree. Someone following Guénon can call himself simply "guénonian" or take a term from his books and use it for this purpose, but these words cannot apply to he himself.

3) Excellent! Now it's a matter of not forgetting to make the very specific divergences between them clear in the text. :-)

4) But don't you think it's quite extreme to claim that Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Palamas, Dionysius etc., all of them strong ontological realists, were naturalists or pantheists? One thing doesn't contradict the other. You can have a perfectly well established hierarchy of the manifested without this going against the acknowledgment of an unknown and unknowable Source beyond dualistic reason. Even Aquinas recognized this before he died (too bad he didn't manage to write about it). So, I cannot see how your argument applies, neither in Guénon's case, nor in the unintended consequences towards all those other philosophers.

5/6) I'm looking forward to it. It's pretty clear you know much more about Guénon than I do, and for me, that our disagreement is pretty much about matters of expression. :-) -- alexgieg (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello alexgieg,

1) I agree. I modified the infobox accordingly.
4) My mistake, I read you too fast in the first place. Of course Plato is not a naturalist nor a pantheist; the point is different here: how obscure was the origin of pre-socratic greek philosophy w.r.t. Indian metaphysics, it is clear that, at least on what we know about it, it does not seem to go beyond the Being, as seen as the principle of manifestation. Classical medieval theology share the same aspect and nobody would call it naturalist or panthesist, you're quite right, but the main point here is that, even if the origin of manifestation is not manifested itself, there is no consideration, in these systems, of the Absolute considered as beyond the principle of manifestation. Said in indian terminology, Paramatma is not considered. This makes quite a difference with the doctrine exposed by Guenon, and it makes even more difficult the assumption that Guenon was inspired by the anciant greeks.
5/6) I'm sure our disagreements are, after analysis, completely inexistant. Thanks again. Be free to go on that discussion on my talk page if you will. TwoHorned (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Thanks! I've added a small <br/> for aesthetics. 4/5/6) Or in Christian terminology, Greeks knew the Son (Logos), but not the Father. Or, for Schuon, the Relative Absolute, not the Absolute itself. Yes, I can see your point. Thanks for bringing it up. I don't think there's a need for we to continue the discussion elsewhere. It's all pretty clear now. :-) PS.: I've also "stub'ified" the article so that people know it's a work in progress, and added some additional metadata. When you're finished, please delete the {{Inuse}} box I've put at the top, okay? -- alexgieg (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Since it will take me some time to write the article, I've changed the box to "revamp". TwoHorned (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I take your point about René Guénon not describing himself as a philosopher, but I think it can be safely said that he is "an influential figure in the domain of philosophy" all the same. Robina Fox (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)