Talk:Julius Evola

Vague comments and possibly a threat

So, basically, this article only exists because you're all seeing this man's work through an American perspective, and yeah, that's actually a very American thing to do; simplifying everything to its most basic core in order to be adjusted for your limited black and white worldview.

The fool does not know that Truth is in the Self, but is obsessed with scriptures. A purely verbal knowledge does not dissipate the anguish of becoming. Darkness is not pierced by merely saying: "Lightning."

And yeah, putting him along the alt-right and harry potter, that's very dumb. Actualrational (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Actualrational Is that it? Or do you have actual criticisms beyond "Americans are dumb and follow a black and white worldview", adding a quote which supports a black and white worldview, and then making vague comments which could be construed as threats to other users of this site? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: Sin a is vague and nebulous concept which basically boils down to "I don't like what you're doing therefore it is evil, and therefore so are you." ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, being a famous political philosopher is gonna get you on here, it's not like we skip Hobbes or Rousseau or Locke. Being one who's hyper-authoritarian makes you even more missional. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Actualrational I wouldn't expect too much from this website, it's basically propaganda with some attempted humour tacked on. Just accept it and move on. I don't think the person who wrote the article has even read more than one or two of his books, and at that it must have been skim reading.106.68.44.205 (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

True. The article isn't critical enough. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

One definite thing I will point out: The writer of the article seems to claim that Evola's "natural order of things" amounts to a naturalistic fallacy; this indicates either a lack of understanding of what this fallacy actually is, or what Evola actually meant when he said this (again, an unfortunate lack of understanding by the writer). What he meant by that is closer to the natural order established by Plato (The "philosopher republic") or the Eastern dharma and caste system (similar to Plato's republic), which translates to "according to the nature of" literally, neither of which are fallacious in and of themselves when understood properly. I will remove this claim for the above reason.106.68.44.205 (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

So a Naturalist Fallacy.... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A naturalistic fallacy is a raw appeal to "how things appear or occur in nature", which if anything is the exact opposite of his philosophical axioms. Evola appeals to a god or transcendent, unfalsifiable principle, which would be his principal fallacy throughout his work from a purely rational perspective. However, he explicitly remarks in one work that Plato's Republic (which relies on Plato's theory of forms and rational argumentation - not the naturalistic fallacy) is the closest rational approximation of his ideas.106.68.44.205 (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

NoFap is a Taoist practice

The NoFap practice was invented by the Taoists and both Alt-Right and Tantrics learned from them. ^{— Unsigned, by: Barbarian / talk / contribs}