what does he mean by tradition?

>the previous phase, limited in its extent, had been that of the Romantic hero: the man who feels hilself alone in the face of divine indifference, and the superior individual who despite everything reaffirms himself in a tragic context. he breaks accepted laws, but not in the sense of denying their validity; rather, he claims for himself exceptional rights to what id forbidden, be it good or ill. the process exhausts itself, for example, in a man like MAX STIRNER, who saw in all morality the ultimate form of the divine fetish that was to be destroyed. he denounced the "beyond" that exists within man and that tries to give him rules as being a "new heaven" that is merely the insidious transposition of the external, theological beyond, which has been negated. with this conquest of the "interior god" and the exaltation of the "unique" that is free from tules and "rests its cause on nothingness," opposing itself to every value and pretense of society, STIRNER marks the end of the road trodden by the nihilistic social revolutionaries (to whom the term nihilism was originally applied)-but trodden in the name of the utopian social ideas in whih they always believed; ideas such as "justice", "liberty", and "humanity," as opposed to the injustice and tyranny that they saw in the existing order.

what did he mean by this? i get his point about the people leading up to stirner, but not really sure how any of what he says would actually apply to stirner

>>9534080
Short in abstract terms.
The transcendent relation of man to himself, his kin and extended kin.

>>9534080
His feelings.

>>9534189
It seems that he believes nihilistic social revolutionaries had to, almost of necessity, lead to Stirner. The nihilistic revolutionaries destroy worship of God and divinity, and replace it with inner moral ideals to follow such as justice, liberty, and humanity as opposed to injustice, oppression, and inhumanity which they see as the new evil/Devil.

However, Stirner pointed out that even this following of such abstract ideals was based on meaningless abstraction, a sort of relic of worshiping divinity. So he did away with even that.

>in short, nietzsche hands on the ancient sayings "be yourself", "become what you are", as propositions for today, when all superstructure has fragmented. we shall see that the existentialists take up a similar theme, albeit less confidently. stirner is, however, not to be counted among its antecedents, because in his idea of the "unique" there is virtually no opening of the deepest dimensions of existence.

struggling to understand this critique of stirner. he seems to me to be completely agreeing with him, and the tweaks he makes to nietzsche seem to be to align his philosophy with stirner's. is he saying that stirner denies there could ever be a value to strive for?

>>9534507
completely agree, but what i don't understand is the critique here >>9534523

it seems like evola would want to use stirner for a jumping off point, but he doesn't want to - why?

anyone who understands evola or knows a better place to ask?

Ride the Tiger, Chapter I: The Modern World and Traditional Man;

>I use the word tradition in a special sense, which I have defined elsewhere. It differs from the common usage, but is close to the meaning given to it by Rene Guenon in his analysis of the crisis of the modern world. In this particular meaning, a civilization or a society is “traditional” when it is ruled by principles that transcend what is merely human and individual, and when all its sectors are formed and ordered from above, and directed to what is above.

The crux of Tradition as Evola envisioned it is esotericism, applied to individual praxis and socio-political organization.

>>9534080
Chuuni bullshit.

>transcends merely human and individual
wew xD

>>9536778
What's with the surge of people who don't know how to reply to posts? I swear I hadn't seen this shit up until a month or two ago.

Americans are incapable of understanding Evola, you have to be European.