The philosophical background of Guenon and his followers’ traditionalism is extremely close to the Platonic tradition … In other words, traditionalism can be taken as radical Platonism. ~ Alexander Dugin, Political Platonism.
Dugin’s purpose seems to be to make Tradition academically palatable, by couching it in Platonic language. Obviously, as we shall demonstrate, unlike Dugin, there are certainly correspondences with Plato. However, Guenon probably refers to Aristotle and the Scholastics more than to Plato, so we shall also rely on them in developing a “Platonic” political system. Unfortunately, Dugin makes this rather strange assertion:
Traditionalism offers the entire necessary philosophical, ideational, conceptual, and sociological apparatus [to oppose globalization].
Au contraire, Guenon rejected philosophy as now understood; a fortiori, he had no intention of creating any such apparatus, since it would be a symptom of modernity, not its cure. That is because Dugin presumes that Guenon created a “school” called “Traditionalism”. That would make his project just one opinion among many. Now Guenon anticipated that; this is what he wrote about “Traditionalism”:
[“traditionalists” refer] to people who only have a sort of tendency or aspiration towards tradition without really knowing anything at all about it; this is the measure of the distance dividing the “traditionalist” spirit from the truly traditional spirit, for the latter implies a real knowledge … ~ See The Absurdity of Traditionalism
I hate to sound harsh, but those are Guenon’s words. Dugin is not alone; even Charles Upton refers to a “School of Traditionalism”. And they are hardly alone in promoting that misunderstanding. Reputations are built on the ignorance of readers.
Since we are on the topic of Platonism, we must understand the distinction he made between opinion and real knowledge. Guenon is not interested in opinion, since opinions can be mistaken. Most thinkers are, since it is more fun to debate. On the other hand, knowledge is of Being or Reality and cannot be mistaken. Guenon calls the transition from opinion to knowledge as an “intellectual conversion” or “metaphysical realization”. For the soi disant Traditionalists, such knowledge is simply invisible to them, beyond their intellectual horizon, so they fail to understand it, and, worse, don’t even seek it.
Structure of Man and Society
We begin a Platonic political system with an understanding of the Being of man, who is constituted by the three soul forces, and united by a Self:
- Concupiscence (eros)
- Irascibility (thumos)
- Intellect (nous)
- The I
This is not a matter of opinion, but rather true knowledge of man’s Being. When this is applied to political life, we get the idea of castes:
- Workers and producers
- Those holding political power
- Those wielding spiritual authority
- The (one) leader, chief, king, emperor, etc.
Georges Dumezil documented the same socio-political structures in Traditional societies. Hence, those structures are not at all arbitrary, but follow from the Real structure of man and society. Alternative political systems are simply deformations of this. Usually, the political powers and spiritual authorities are not explicitly acknowledged but are illicitly smuggled in.
Being and Thought
As Thomas Aquinas points out in De Principiis Naturae, generation, or Being, requires three principles:
- being in potency which is matter (Prime Matter, or what Dugin calls Chaos)
- non-existence in act which is privation
- that through which something comes to be in act which is form (or essences)
That is, Existence is generated by essences imposing themselves on prime matter. We experience existence, but know essences. Modern dualistic philosophies separate existence and essence. However, there is no duality, even though the modern mind has trouble discerning essences. Spiritual vision must be developed in order to intuit the essences the generate phenomena.
Privation, which is the negation of form, adds a level of difficulty. Privation is known in Thought, but confused in Being. Therefore, care must be taken to distinguish the part of a being that is the manifestation of the form from privation which is the inability of the form to completely manifest itself. Only in God is there no privation, since His existence and essence are identical.
Struggle for Existence
Although some still hope for some Utopian time of peace, the struggle for Existence is part of the fabric of nature. Even in Eden, Adam was expected to work. That means he was incomplete, subject to privation, and still needed to manifest all his possibilities.
Moreover, there was temptation in the Garden in the form of the forbidden fruit and the serpent. Therefore, Adam still had to face the Greater Battle against his lower nature.
There is a persistent idea that the animals had a different nature from what we see now. However, the naming of the animals means that Adam understood their true nature. The beasts are wholly natural beings, with no supernatural graces, so the lions were certainly not dining on Impossible Burgers. Thomas Aquinas offers this rationale:
In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. ~ Summa Theologica, 1 Q 96
Inasmuch as Man shares in the nature of animals, Man is involved in the Lesser Struggle against material forces and enemies. Work, temptation, and struggle are permanent aspects of life.
Since Traditional political arrangements deal with reality, not speculative thought, the horizontal struggle involves the battle to protect and defend man’s natural life. This includes the family, clan, tribe, and, of course, the City.
For a background on Guenon and Neoplatonism, see There is no God but God
It’s not impossible that the rabbit felt (and maybe still feels) a sort of joy in the chase as the falcon stoops upon it. It’s not so hard to imagine that the tearing and rendering of the Sun symbol creatures was not begrudged by their prey, in Eden, although there was pain involved. Anyone with an eye to see can also note, today, that the birds of prey struggle too, as they often starve from lack of skill or just dearth in Nature, or cold or wet: they, too, rejoice in the good of their prey, for without them, they starve. And many predators are injured in the process of making a kill, or attempting it. So the balance is balanced, even after the Fall. Part of the unfallen world is still here. If there were no deer season, they would all be killed by the autos on the road, or starve, themselves. Animals eating each other, or the plants, the Life still comes from God. It is His to give or keep, before or after the Fall. Aquinas seems to have the right of it, whether there is more to be said or not. We won’t be floating on clouds strumming harps forever, in heaven. There will be work and struggle, albeit of a transcendent kind, and each after their kind.
That’s fair. Wasn’t trying to debate, just join the understanding I had with Aquinas’ which I lack.
If you allow me one last question: what suggestion would you give to solve (apparent) contradictions between sages (like between Aquinas and St. Basil), not this one specifically but in general?
Ilo Stabet, I wasn’t inviting you to a debate.
I gave you the answer. If you don’t like it, then just move on.
hi Cologero
Thanks for the reply.
With regards to work, it may be a case of words losing their original meaning in that verse from before the Fall. In Young’s Literal Translation the entire verse reads like this: «And Jehovah God taketh the man, and causeth him to rest in the garden of Eden, to serve it, and to keep it.»
Because it mentions specifically ‘rest’ and uses the words ‘serve’ and ‘keep’ rather than the stronger words about work as a curse after the Fall (‘in sweat’ and so forth), it suggests to me a rather different kind of ‘work’ – perhaps in the same way that one’s ‘work’ at a hobby is different from one’s ‘work’ for pay – all necessary distances allowed, of course.
But perhaps the distinction is rather about spiritual work on Adam’s part to keep his connection with God, and because he fell, now he must work in the sense we all know now – a lower work in addition to the spiritual work.
On the animal question, I was basing my remarks on a few Patristic quotes which I found on Fr. Seraphim Rose’s book on Genesis, perhaps the most relevant one here is this one, from St. Basil:
«What is the mystery which is concealed for you under this? To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation, and herbs (are given) _ We see, however, many wild animals who do not eat fruits. What fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with?
Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of nature, were nourished by fruits. But when man changed his way of life and departed from the limit which had been assigned him, the Lord, after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of all foods: “Eat all that in the same way as edible plants” (Gen. 9:3). By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them.
Since then the lion is a carnivore, since then also vultures watch for carrion. For the vultures were not yet looking over the earth at the very moment when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that the vultures might eat them. Nature had not yet divided, for it was in all its freshness; hunters did not capture, for such was not yet the practice of men; the beasts, for their part, did not yet tear
their prey, for they were not carnivores _ But all followed the way of the swans, and all grazed on the grass of the meadow….»
Yes, you are missing something.
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. ~ Genesis 2:15
So there was work, although “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:30).
then we read, The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. Genesis 3:21
Garments of skin come from dead animals. They weren’t polyester.
Thomas’ logic is impeccable. A lion that eats bananas and nuts is not a lion.
Animals cannot receive supernatural graces and their souls are not immortal.
Adam’s soul is naturally immortal, but his body was not. Only supernatural grace can make a body immortal. But in Adam’s case, I guess we will never know.
The latter part (including the Aquinas quote) seems to contradict the Patristic notion (and even Scripture itself) in many regards, both before the Fall and before the Flood.
That before the Fall there was no death and therefore no struggle (and also no work, which is a form of struggle, as such – hence the meaning of ’tilling the soil’ after the Fall). That outside of paradise even the beasts we now know to be carnivores would eat only plants and fruits. And only after the flood was man (and beasts) allowed to eat flesh.
This struggle can also be seen as a result of disintegration between Heaven and Earth, and man’s inability to mediate between the two, now requiring work, and technology, and so forth.
Or am I missing something?
Ken (Wheeler)…is that you self promoting again? If not, then dgaubatz313, you’d be advised to look elsewhere. Mr. Apophasis’ love of playing ‘Mirror, mirror” would make even ol’ Narcissus blush.
Maugris – If i had to guess what part of his response would be to what you said, I would guess that he would say something like this:
To say that Guenon is essential to understanding Evola and Tradition as a whole is absurd. Imagine telling a Christian that a preacher is essential to understanding Christianity rather than studying the original Christian texts instead…
The person that told me this has studied the ancient Pali (he says Prakrit is older than Sanskrit and Pali is what the original teachings of the Buddha are written in), he studied the ancient Sanskrit, he studied Ancient Greek, Ancient Latin, etc and went to the original texts of Tradition. When he criticized Guenon and Schuon I’m guessing that he was saying that them two did not understand Tradition as much as the other three (Coomaraswamy, Uzdaviny’s and Evola).
Like I said, I’m just starting my spiritual journey, but didn’t Guenon not even understand the true original message of the Buddha and it wasn’t until after he came across Coomaraswamy’s and others works that he renounced what he said earlier about Buddhism? If so, he didn’t even come to understand the true original message of the Buddha through the original texts themselves, but through someone else that knew about, studied and understood these texts and true history themself instead of Guenon…
The guy I’m talking about used to run a couple of his own sites. Cologero even linked to one of this guys sites in one of his articles. Here are the sites he used to run: https://web.archive.org/web/20100704194342/http://www.attan.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20120511174337/http://www.kathodos.com/
Here is one of his emails: neoplatonist@icloud.com
He is the master, not me. If you want to know more you can send an email to him and maybe he’ll answer. If he is in the mood to answer or debate i have a very strong feeling he WILL bring up the original texts and the correct translations by himself and anyone else who actually understood them.
In one of his livestreams he talked about Guenon and Schuon in a negative way when someone asked about them. He has also talked about Nordics in some of his livestreams. His channel is here: https://www.youtube.com/user/kathodosdotcom
All his livestreams are removed and not saved after they end.
Dgaubatz,as many times stated on this very site, Guenon is essential to understanding Evola and the Sacred Tradition as a whole. Schuon too is very helpful, he is essential the “practical” to Guenon, whose work is essential “theoretical”. Who is this who told you Evola is superior to Guenon? Evola only is useful within the exposition of Tradition wrought by Guenon, and Schuon is a gem as well.
Someone I follow that speaks many languages, both ancient (Greek, Pali, Sanskrit) and modern doesn’t like Rene Guenon or Frithjof Schuon. He likes Ananda Coomaraswamy, Julius Evola, Algis Uzdavinys and some others I can’t remember right now. He did not have kind words for Guenon and Schuon.
I’m just starting my spiritual journey, but based on what I’ve read on the five people I mentioned above it does seem like Evola, Uzdaviny’s and Coomaraswamy are better than Schuon and Guenon.
Thank you for the site. This looks like one of the best I’ve come across so far.