44 words / 21:33
John Morgan talks about the prospects for uniting religion and ethnonationalism, as well as the inauspicious history that the two have with each other, in this video from the 2023 Counter-Currents Spring Retreat. The text of the talk, including links for more information, is here.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
9 comments
I always enjoy John Morgan’s views and especially when he talks about Evola. However why say the Collin Cleary is an expert on Traditionalism when Cleary rejects Traditionalism completely? He has a silly ‘refutation’ of it which is completely modern in character, and prefers the dreadful Heidegger, a completely modern philosopher despite his pretensions and ambitions to overcome Plato.
Collin is a friend of mine, so I can attest to it myself, but apart from that it should also be evident from his writings both that he is indeed very well-versed in Traditionalism and that he does not “reject it completely.” One can accept or reject his criticisms, but they are not ill-informed. There are few people who can write on such topics as eloquently as Collin. He is also one of the few who has attempted to approach the revival of European paganism from a Traditional standpoint. For Guénon and Evola, of course, the matter was simple: European pagan traditions cannot be revived. One can accept that or not, but not everyone is content to select from the few surviving religions in the world today, none of which are of European origin.
I did not say his arguments were ill-informed, but that they are modern in character. Which they are, as is Heidegger. Similarly any hope of a pagan revival is modern in character, and as you acknowledge Guénon and Evola attest. So what is left to be called ‘Traditional’ in such a world view? So I think my original point stands. Friendship is an excellent thing, but Cleary is a modern thinker, however well informed.
While I have great respect for Guénon, Evola, and many of the other philosophers of Tradition, I don’t know that we can say that they have the final word on the matter of Tradition — especially given that they did occasionally make mistakes, and of course even disagreed with each other on some matters, which belies the idea that they were perfectly conveying an absolute Truth. Therefore I myself am open to those who, having imbibed the spirit of Tradition as well, present different perspectives on how we should approach and understand it. Cleary may be a modern thinker, but so were Guénon and Evola, and in fact so is the entire notion of Tradition itself. In this age all attempts to reach Tradition will be influenced by modernity, otherwise modern people wouldn’t be able to understand it. Thus we shouldn’t treat the teachings of earlier teachers as scripture and create an orthodoxy out of it.
I don’t think you fully delved into the root of the problem laid out by Heidegger. Guénon and especially Evola fall root to the same pitfalls laid bare by Heidegger’s history of metaphysics. Performing a “history” might be a modern tactic, but it’s not like neither Guénon nor Evola were engaging in a strange modernism of their own, too. Both embraced a rather individualistic in behavior rejection of the societies in which they lived in. Intellectually, Guénonian metaphysics is Eleatic in nature, Evolian metaphysics is Fichtean in nature, and both are dreadfully derivative of metaphysics of presence, despite their pretensions otherwise. There’s an element of novelty to Heidegger’s ontological difference that neither Traditionalist thinker fully overcomes, and it has yet to be fully dealt with today. If it takes a modern to slay modernism, then so be it.
But John, I think you make the same error here as Cleary, which is to mistake Traditionalism for a form of ‘thinking’ or theory as opposed to what Evola and especially Guenon insist upon: that Tradition is essentially transmitted through initiation, which is supra-rational. Therefore whatever modern influences or modern ways of thinking Traditionalists are susceptible to is secondary to this. One cannot call oneself a Traditionalist in any meaningful sense and disregard this point.
I understand why people might want to downplay the significance of initiation these days: they are hard to find and one feels like one might lose something of oneself in receiving initiation (which of course, is partly the point). But these difficulties are separate questions to the core issue of what Traditionalism really means, which is initiation or else simply another theory and aspect of modernity.
I understand the difference between speculative theory and wisdom. I can appreciate how important supra-rational truths are. But how else are we supposed to evaluate the metaphysical worldview of the Traditionalists outside of philosophy? Neither of us are initiated as far as I know.
Another problem with Traditionalists is that they try to have their cake and eat it too. They can make all kinds of philosophical claims, claims that, in a vacuum, appear as if they resemble names we’ve already encountered and can be thus fruitfully analyzed from outside. However, whenever one tries, they retreat into the sanctuary of initiation. How are we supposed to contend with such motte and bailey tactics?
The disappointing thing is that Heidegger has charitably written about Traditionalism and approached it on its own terms, as much as secular philosophy could do anyway. Until I see a Traditionalist approach Heidegger on his own terms and give a sufficient critique, I’m going to have to hand the contest to the Heideggerian right and hope a god can save us.
I appreciate this clear and concise response. I think you are right to distinguish the metaphysical theories of the Traditionalists from the initiatic transmission of timeless wisdom, and the former are indeed subject to modern philosophical critique and may be found wanting. But one cannot simply disregard the Traditionalist claims about initiation just because one has not received initiation oneself. So how had Heidegger, as you say, ‘charitably written about Traditionalism and approached it on its own terms’ when I search in vain for a even single mention of initiation in e.g. this fairly lengthy ‘refutation’ of Traditionalism:
https://counter-currents.com/2020/12/heidegger-against-the-traditionalists-part-one/
If Heidegger elsewhere has a refutation that does treat of initiation, I will gladly read it, but what I have seen from Collin Cleary is not that. Therefore neither Heidegger and certainly not Collin Cleary have refuted Traditionalism; at best they have refuted Guenon’s adaptation of Advaita Vendanta, which is not a very significant accomplishment. I realise the validity of initiation is still being taken for granted, and one can reject it if one wishes, but one ought to represent Traditionalism properly by at least mentioning its centrality.
Personally I follow the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and we explicitly refute Vendanta as well. However we maintain an authentic initiatic tradition. As for Heidegger and Buddhism, like Spengler and even Guenon, he had a very poor understanding of it. And I think had he known more about philosophy in ancient India, I don’t think he could have maintained his theory that Western decline stems from Plato, because similar ideas were definitely found there.
As mentioned above, anyone who treats Traditionalism as a mere philosophical theory and thus disregards the role of initiation has misunderstood what Traditionalism really is.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.