No less true for the religion of modern philosophy.

Evola on Religion and Initiation
— Read on

This analysis of religion can be said to hold true when we look into Western philosophy.

The issue with the “modernity” of philosophy concerns the two aspects (s)he ? talks about, namely religion and initiation.

What is modern in the philosophical context, which contains a problem that I talk about in my books but that I won’t go to in to much here, is that the people who read philosophy through approaching it as a religion believe that they are indeed being initiated. This is to say that their understanding of philosophy, for the predominance of people who consider themselves philosophers, is understood really an entrance through the religious orientation upon things.

The issue that I deal with in my work has to do with initiation as initiation which doesn’t fall back into religiosity. Indeed we could see post post modern philosophers such as Francois Laruelle and Alain Badiou as dealing with this phenomenon, this interaction or this boundary, depending upon how we are looking at it, between religion and initiation.

My work makes the firm assertion that what is religious should be left to its religiousness because there is no “speaking into the religion” of what is initiatory due to the nature of the orientation that is already present through the view upon the world. I suggest that we look at various cultures, but perhaps most particularly and inviting to what we know of indigenous people. People who become shamans do not just one day choose like “hey I’m going to learn about that esoteric stuff”. Indeed those who become shamans Are revealed unto themselves in a manner that they don’t understand such that other people to whom this kind was revealed the state then help the initiate along the journey of such initiatory revealing.

There is no arguing into what I call ‘conventional philosophy’ to explain to them how their understanding of the texts of philosophy is incorrect, Because (1) such an argument is offensive to their religious sensibility, and (2) it is indeed correct by virtue of the fact that you cannot argue to them or explain to them how they are incorrect because every single effort automatically routes itself back into their axiomatic understanding of the truth of their experience, which is thus de facto religious.

Contrary to what modern religious philosophical clerics (read: conventional philosophers) would want to pronounce, it is not that everyone falls under the religious theological-traditional philosophical explanation of existence and what being human is. This is the issue at hand; to allow divisions to be made at their proper junctures: Religious structures simply do not allow for things to be as they are, but indeed make the further aggravating step of asserting it’s racist notice upon that which is other and ultimately that witches it’s neighbor religious structures simply do not allow for things to be as they are, but indeed make the further aggravating step of asserting it’s righteousness upon that which is other and ultimately that which is it’s neighbor .Modern philosophy supposes that it speaks to all things the truth of all things and posits as an essential truths an encompassing transcendence (The argument that there is no encompassing transcendence is an argument that relies upon such transcendence) by which all things are given to their (conventional philosophers’) intuitive reason. They therefore, at the beginning, the very beginning of their thinking, do or did not allow for things to fall at the proper junction but instead assert their transcendental communion with truth upon all the world. Their attempts at solving the problem before them naturally coincide with the problem itself in an uncoordinated real truth that cannot be undone through the conventional method.


Thank you writer of the post of that link.

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

2 thoughts on “No less true for the religion of modern philosophy.”

  1. Regarding “(s)he ?”. The passage I posted was written by Julius Evola, a (deceased) male. The link I placed at the bottom of my post was to direct readers to the original article (by Evola) which I sourced the passage from.

    1. Cool. I’m trying not to assume everyone is male. Now a days I’d rather default to assuming everyone is female. Actually. Lol. But at least. Both

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s