>tfw seeing the solar/lunar dichotomy everywhere really

Most people on /his/ tend to ignore or get upset by Evola. At least, the last thread I started to discuss him resulted in massive amounts of misquoted and incorrectly cited materials criticizing him. This was likely done by both actual leftists and trolls. Regardless, I will be watching the thread. If nothing else, I can discuss with you OP.

>>3034810
I know, it's like pulling teeth trying to get good discussion going about this guy. I just want to read good criticisms of his work. Like is there anything egregiously wrong about his characterizations of solar/lunar cultures? What about his views on death? Can modernity be saved from within Evola's worldview, by specifically refuting his immanent teleology of history? Is there something he's missing?

>>3034848
>Can modernity be saved from within Evola's worldview
Not really. Evola was influenced pretty heavily by Theravada Buddhism, and generally in his later works he mentions how modernity is just a phrase that represents the current epoch of the viewer. As such, it is merely an illusory background upon which the soul crouched on the tiger engages in spiritual warfare against his adversary and triumphs.

>>3034881
Well, right, but I mean is there any way of specifically refuting his "system" from within? Instead of handwaving it away? I guess the real question is, is Evola pretty much right about everything as soon as you accept his premises? Which, if you ask me, are eminently obvious? Like solar and lunar sounds like fancy new age shit but I know you know it's something you can tap into just waiting in line at the supermarket.

Evola was not correct about everything
in Norse myths, Sól is a female, and Máni a male

>>3034901
I doubt there is a way to refute a metaphysical base preset to change based on the human observing the lower lights of the emanation.
>>3034903
And you have fallen into one of the misconceptions of reading Evola without precursory knowledge of Hermetics. Male and Female in this sense refer to the vital emanations coming from the fountainhead, and are not gender related, but rather based on the creative and destructive energies that both symbolize. When Evola spoke of the aforementioned deities, he was nonetheless speaking of higher realms, as he was always prone to do in his writings.

>>3034923
or maybe he was ignorant?
he also thought that Kshatriya was superior to the Brahmin

>>3034937
Perhaps.
>he also thought that Kshatriya was superior to the Brahmin
I think that largely comes from Evola's background in and affinity for the Warrior archetype as supreme in the qualities of duty, strength, and tradition, not necessarily meant in the literal sense. But then again, I could be wrong, it has been a while since I last read Revolt.

>>3034923
Well I think his point is that, counter to tradition, the Norse solar deity is female, and the lunar deity male. But I do think there are examples in Revolt of cultures with inverted symbolisms that signified a step down from the traditional golden age designations, but just a step and not an outright descent. At least in reference to the sun's path across the sky regarded as subordinate to the fixed stability of the Great Mother.

>>3034903
So this is where the cuckiness comes from

>>3034901
I personally reject his dividing the world into solar and lunar because i'm opposed to binary categorization and feel most things are more nuanced than that.

>>3035091
It's only a relative distinction that becomes reconciled at higher levels of realization. He says as much in his book on alchemy: nature is one thing that both is active and passive with respect to itself. The solar is just the lunar centralized, and the lunar is just the solar dissipated.

>>3035115
So why does he bother applying it to civilizations? For the record I like Evola but disagree with plenty of his philosophy.

>>3035167
Why not? Civilizations that have lost that center he classifies as lunar, civilizations that have retained the traditional spirit as solar. It's one energy that can descend or ascend, in the same way a hero and a degenerate are both made of atoms, what's wrong with just putting a name to its forms of manifestation?

>>3035178
>Civilizations that have lost that center he classifies as lunar, civilizations that have retained the traditional spirit as solar.
From my understanding he classified what he called feminine, Asiatic civilizations as luner and masculine, Aryan civilizations as Solar. If this is the case it would have nothing to do with Tradition, as Aryans themselves changed the traditions of those they conquered and some civilizations would have to had been perpetually lunar.

>>3033623
>really interested in some critiques of this that aren't brainlet-tier. Are they out there?

Academics don't really criticize stuff like Ayn Rand and Evola, because that would be giving them way more credibility than they deserve

>>3035186
It's true some civilizations he considered typologically lunar, like the Southern negroid races, and solarity has never been established without the proper Aryan element.

I've always understood Evola as saying, one can uplift oneself to the extent he knows precisely what a true uplifting actually is

>>3035216
>caring what academia thinks about philosophers who devoted their entire lives to praxis instead of squabbling over scholarly minutia

lol

>>3034937
Kshatriyas were superior to Brahmins in the early Vedic period though. They didn't switch positions of power until their societies became more settled.