What is the point of trying to categorize Evola’s philosophy? It can only be misleading without first firmly grasping precisely what that philosophy is. You make it seem that Evola did nothing but mix incompatible systems willy-nilly, like some kind of vile tasting philosophical Mulligan stew.
Rather, it may be more helpful to consider that Evola strove to express Traditional metaphysics in Western terms rather than in the Vedantic terms used by Guenon. Since the main thread of Western philosophy is idealist, then it is natural that Evola continues that tradition. In Evola’s youth, philosophy was dominated by the now forgotten neo-idealist Italian philosophers Giovanni Gentile and Benedetto Croce, so his philosophical works were written in reaction to them.
Clearly, Evola develops classical metaphysics as expressed in Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and Aquinas, while re-interpreting them in the light of Tradition. To my mind, he adds significant insights, particularly in relating the notions of Will and Power to the intellectualism of that Tradition. He proposed a novel and useful way of understanding the distinction between Essence and Existence. His understanding of the Plotinus’ problem of the One and the Many is certainly solipsistic, but if we understand the equivalent notion that Atman is Brahman, it is a difficult conclusion to avoid.
I don’t believe anyone is further developing Evola’s philosophy but that should change someday.
From: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of R.P.
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 4:43 PM
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Re: Evolian Meta-Philosophy
I am not a Heidegger guy--except where Heidegger resonates with medieval theology. Anyway--"neo-Idealism" is just a term--is "post-Kantian Idealism" less unsuitable? Words, semantics... But Evola, in spite of his Eastern and medieval spiritual education , I believe is following the specific Germanic transcendentalist Idealism somewhere near SCHELLING, and squeezing it strongly for the last drop of insight...
Vico...Schelling..."trans-rationalistic rationalism" of the Eliadian phenomenologist of Numinous experience...theosophically-filtered, esoteric-Hyperborean "neo-Theosophia"...? Evola outdid Fichtean subjectivist solipsism in his "magical Idealism" already, deepening matters...so...where exactly does he belong, analytically...?
Heck, at least I didn't call Evola a "neo-Stirnerian, neo-Sorelian Nietzschean pathological case" like some academic idiots...
I lament Heidegger's failure to uphold transcendent, arch-principial reality against the ravages of Judaic demoplutocratic intellectual demolition, neo-Gramscian contagion of sub-humanism, and techno-capitalist, materialist Nihilism. The de-souled mechanization of life only needed to be answered by aggressive counter-assertion of qualitative spiritual imagination. Heidegger is a tangled bog--regressive elements vying with superior elements...Nietzschean romanticism interwoven with Eckhartian apophatic negativistic theology of the Middle Ages...
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Asdfasdsfdas Sfsdf <andreforcordelia@...> wrote:
>
> What is "neo-idealism?"
>
> Do you meantranscendental Idealism like Kant and Fichte?
>
> Let me guess, you are a Heidegger-guy?
>
>
> That would be the only way this pointed question could be understood in a way that it could be responded to.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: R.P. <brightimperator@...>
> To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2012 10:01 AM
> Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Evolian Meta-Philosophy
>
>
> Â
> Evola derives Tradition from pure integral metaphysical Being itself; yet humanly, the locus of Evola in mundane philosophic history is best characterized how...? Evola continues continental neo-Idealism almost to the point of outpacing it...and then his "static gnosis of platonic being" seems to suggest his neo-Plotinian main impetus...
>
> How would the erudite moderator describe the place of Evola in terms of the philosophy of existence and Western thinking...? Thx for your time.
>