This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Traditionalism (perennialism) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All authentic religious traditions are true sounds tautological to me — Ashley Y 06:58, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge Ken Wilber refers a lot to the Philosophia Perennis and seems to support it. Shall he be mentioned in the article? Luis Dantas 29 June 2005 19:36 (UTC)
Yes. Wilber mentions Guenon several times in The Atman Project: A Transpersonal View of Human Development (1980). Here's one example from that book:
It follows, then, that almost all of the data generated by orthodox Western psychology pertains only to the gross realm. Huston Smith is quite clear on that point.352 So is René Guénon: Western psychologists "recognize . . . scarcely anything except the corporeal modality [the gross bodymind]." That is, Western psychology aims at what Guénon calls the "corporeal individuality," very like Aurobindo's "physical ego." As Guénon so bluntly but correctly puts it: "As for modern Western psychology, it deals only with quite a restricted portion of the human individuality, where the mental faculty is in direct relationship with the corporeal modality, and given the methods it employs, it is incapable of going any further."168
He also mentions Coomaraswamy.
Related to this, I would very much like to see a reference for the statement: "This movement also influenced Ken Wilber..." I believe it's accurate (as demonstrated above); I'd just like to know more. Clocke ( talk) 11:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What about Leopold Ziegler? -- 195.4.151.116 13:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
A few things. Could someone explain why it was decided to merge this article with the one on Radical Traditionalism? There ought to have been discussion of the proposed merger before anything got redirected, but apparently User:Sam Spade put up the {{ merge}} templates earlier today, and effected the merger within 15 minutes, which seems to be against the spirit and letter of the policy at WP:MM. If I'd had a chance to comment, I'd have pointed out that they don't actually seem to be the same thing. The Traditionalists seem more like philosophers or anthropologists, while Radical Traditionalism, as I understand it, is very much an active movement. True, they have a single common member in Julius Evola, but this means that the groups are a full generation of thinkers apart. It's possible that they have a strong connection, and maybe even deserve to share an article, but I don't think there's sufficient commonality to justify merging the content completely. -- Cantara 01:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The merging policy only requires discussion if the merging editor thinks there is uncertainty regarding the moves appropriateness. I had none. It seems you do however. I am going to revert this page to the post merge version, but will leave the Radical traditionalism page as is to see if you can make a case for its unique status. How familiar are you with these particulars? As best as I can tell the only difference between the two groups is Michael Moynihan, who may not have much to do with René Guénon or Julius Evola personally (he doesn't look old enough ;) They do have alot to do with each other however, as evidenced @ Julius_Evola. Sam Spade 06:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
heh, no need for voting, if you feel they are distinct enough, I'll take your word on it. I'm not familiar with the tyr newsletter, McNallen or Moynihan, and simply assumed that having the same name, same Evola, and similar focus ment that they were closely related movements. Sam Spade 12:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The traditionalist school is a rejection of modernist thought as well, but also of iconoclasm and religious divisions. It is perhaps best understood as mysticism, and an alternative from " new age" foolishness for those seeking greater spiritual depth. A good analogy is that the Traditionalist school is to new age as Ásatrú is to wicca. Similar on the surface to those with a shallow understanding based on the advertising of the latter, modernist trends, but possessed of very significant core differences of philosophy, practice and historicity. Sam Spade 21:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Neither the Traditionalism or Radical Traditionalism articles seem to be complete or particularly useful, and perhaps written from points of view within the philosophies. In particular, I find it odd that this article links to an attack on Sedgwick's book but doesn't actually discuss his findings in the body of the article; in this, it appears to violate NPOV. 03:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe the two articles should be merged and i beleive that there sould be explicit and not sanitized or buried information linking both branhs of traditionalistm with Fascism, Neo-Nazisim, and anti-Semitism. Catherineyronwode 00:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Bloodfox, you have read what i wrote incorrectly. I did not propose to delete the Traditional School page. In fact, i even added to it today. Th Radical traditionalism page, however, is not up to par, in my opinion.
You also ask what Raditical Traditionalism has to do with Fascism, Nazism, and anti-Semitism. The answer is as clear as the nose on your face. From the talk:Radical Traditionalism article itself, i quote:
Please look up Julius Evola and you will see the connection; Evola supported italian Fascism, was employed by the Nazi SS, and promoted anti-Semitism. If the Radical traditionalist movement avows that it owes its thinking to Evola's precepts, it will logically share the affiliations he himself openly acknowledged.
Catherineyronwode 01:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The current edit of Libertarian National Socialist Green Party describes its website nazi.org as "a gathering place for Traditionalists [piped link to the article here] and adherents of thinkers such as Julius Evola and Savitri Devi." I have to wonder if editors here might have something to say about this. If this is accepted fact, perhaps this article should reference it. Samaritan 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I think "Traditionalist School" is a serious misnomer, as Guénon and Coomaraswamy, though contemporaries and admirers of each other's work, hardly constituted a 'school'. Coomaraswamy seriously disputed Guénon's repudiation of an authentic tradition in Buddhism (G. did later revise his view). I do not even think the two ever met. Schuon, a generation younger than the others, had a serious parting of ways with Guénon early on, and presented himself as head of a spiritual tariqa in the Sufi tradition. Guénon and Coomaraswamy never accepted disciples nor claimed any particular spiritual authority. It would be better to speak of 'perennialism', since they all do espouse the supremacy of a perennial philosophy. 'Traditionalism' already has a clear-cut reference in the world of Roman Catholicism. Indeed Catholic Traditionalists are usually quite averse to all that someone like Guénon stood for.
Ah, I'm sorry, I suppose I came to the wrong page. I was under the impression I was at Wikipedia, which is, ostensibly, an encyclopedia. Further, I thought I had clicked on the talk page, which is suppose to discuss suggested edits and not serve as a forum for people to push their specific ideology or specific prejudices against a school of thought or opinion. It appears, however, that I instead clicked on some blatantly biased and leftist URL that is totally committed towards censoring and slandering pages they disagree with. Could anyone please redirect me towards the NPV Wikipedia? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.14.177.162 (
talk) 06:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Can anybody start a stub article on Magical idealism? Thanks. -- 201.51.221.66 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
While dyed in the wool Neo-Trads have a problem with Quinn and Sedgwick, the fact is that their books on the subject must be referenced in any article on the Traditionalist school . Thamarih 07:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Second the above statement, at least as it pertains to Sedgwick's Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century, which is a work of critical scholarship. The Quinn book (The Only Tradition) is more akin to hagiography, or even boosterism -- though it still belongs here, nonetheless. Clocke ( talk) 11:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This article does a good job of discussing who followed the traditionalist school, when they used it, and why, but it never actually says what it is! I also found it difficult to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayley k88 ( talk • contribs) 02:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
etc.
- TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 23:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Desde la Torre ( talk) 17:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This weak limpwristed typical wikipedian article has sucked all the juice out of its subject once again, for the sake of neo-Trotskyite conformism.
Of course the Traditionalist School is necessarily EXTREME RIGHTIST...in terms of today's moribund distinctions. The clearly aristocratic Hierarchicalism of the Dharmic Caste Structure openly exposited by the Traditionalist thinkers and its implications for our modernist conception of "Democracy" are absolutely obliterated mendaciously into nothingness by this counterfeit grotesque mock-scholarship! Another loss for wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 ( talk) 02:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned back in September (see above), I have removed the "too technical" warning on top, as it no longer seems necessary. It may have been appropriate for a previous version of the article, but certainly not anymore. If anyone thinks it is still warranted, please explain here below. Desde la Torre ( talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The first quotation on this article is missing the authorship. The reference mentions the book (From the Divine to the Human) but never states who the author is (Frithjof Schuon). It should be mentioned. -- Nazroon ( talk) 15:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It should be obvious to anyone who knows about this intellectual tradition that the people concerned are commonly called "Traditionalists". This term was recently added to the opening sentence. The article has long included the term a number of times. Despite this an IP editor objects to this term without providing any evidence whatsoever. Therefore I have reverted the article to an earlier version. Yahboo ( talk) 13:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Mosesheron, I saw you added Saran to the list. As the article is focused on the school based on the writings of Guénon, Schuon and their followers, I think that the following entries should be deleted from the "See also" list because these persons or organizations don't belong to this school, nor do they claim to belong to it. They have read Guénon and others but many of their ideas are in opposition to those of this particular Traditionalist School, and the present list can only be misleading for the reader: Muhammad Ajmal, Muhammed Amin Andrabi, Hasan Askari (writer), Dark Enlightenment, Olavo de Carvalho, Development criticism, Carl W. Ernst, Antoine Faivre, Yves Guérin-Sérac, Béla Hamvas, Integral humanism (Maritain), Integral humanism (India), Integralism, Jean-Pierre Laurant, New traditionalism. What is your opinion? Regards, -- Hamza Alaoui ( talk) 11:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Schenkstroop, you say: "I reverted your edits. I have never heard of this distinction, is this something you have found in a reliable source or did you invent it yourself?". Does the fact that you have never heard of this distinction give you the right to act as if there were none? It would have been appropriate to raise the question in this Talk Page (see [1]). You should also know that the lead is a summary of the article and that the article does not mention your addition, but it does mention what you are trying to delete. Also, the lead should not state any sources since they are to be found in the article. Having said that, I can provide you with several sources that limit the "members" of the Traditionalist School to those who share the thought of Guénon-Coomaraswamy-Schuon (philosophia perennis) joined to a spiritual method. These sources speak of "Traditionalist or Perennialist School" and to avoid legitimate questions like yours, I propose to rename this page "Perennialist School". What is your opinion? I revert your edit and await your comments. Regards, Hamza Alaoui ( talk) 11:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Schenkstroop, thank you for your comments. The Traditionalist or Perennialist School is only one of the several traditionalist movements as can be seen in the following excerpts:
As to Mark Sedgwick, he writes in the book you mention, p. 22: "The Traditionalists who are discussed in this book constitute a movement in the loosest sense of the word. The Traditionalist movement has no formal structure, and since the late 1940s has had no central command. It is made up of a number of groups and individuals, united by their common debt to the work of René Guénon. Though the movement is sometimes called “Guénonian traditionalism,” most of those involved in it reject that title and prefer to call themselves “traditionalists,” [...] The history of Traditionalism falls into three stages... During the first stage, up to the 1930s, Guénon developed the Traditionalist philosophy, wrote various articles and books... During the second stage, attempts were made to put the Traditionalist philosophy into practice, principally in two very different contexts: Sufi Islam, as an example of Oriental metaphysics, and European fascism, as a form of revolt...".
Pages xiii-xiv: Sedgwick’s list of traditionalists include “Dugin, Burrow, Blavatsky, Wirth, Encausse, Sebottendorf, Séligny, Pauwels, Freda...”. Their convictions being foreign, when not opposed, to those of Guénon, one sees that Sedgwick's study is not limited to the “members” of the Traditionalist School understood in its Guénonian sense. As he writes on his blog: “I have always made a distinction between Traditionalists (initial upper case, those who are inspired by Guénon and others discussed on this Blog) and traditionalists (initial lower case, those who emphasize tradition in a sense other than that in which Guénon used it).”
So far I have restricted myself to the level of ideas (theory, doctrine). But the other essential face of the TS is the absolute necessity of a spiritual practice based on both the exoteric rites of a religion and its esoteric dimension. This combination of doctrine and method form the religio perennis, “conceived as the conjunction of a metaphysical doctrine and a means of spiritual realization” (P. Laude, Keys, p. 351 - many more sources available but my message is already long enough!). Thus people interested in politics like Evola, Dugin, Bannon, Carvalho are certainly traditionalists - and may even be the founder of their own "Traditionalist School" - but they are not part of the TS understood in the sense explained above. You can also look at [2].
So TS = sophia (religio, philosophia) perennis. I have observed that, to avoid misinterpretations, it has become increasingly common to speak of Perennialist School instead of Traditionalist School. This is, for instance, why the corresponding French WP page changed its name from "Traditionalisme (pérennialisme)" to "Pérennialisme (spiritualité)", and this is why I suggest changing the name of the English page as well. WP:en has presently the following articles: 1) Traditionalist School (perennialism) [3], 2) Tradition (perennialism) [4], 3) Perennial philosophy [5], which includes a section Traditionalist School [6], 4) Traditionalist conservatism [7], and several others: [8] - it is a bit confusing... Schenkstroop (and anyone else of course), before we go any further, can you please share your thoughts on all of this? Thank you, -- Hamza Alaoui ( talk) 16:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello StrongALPHA, you have referenced 4 times Sedgwick's Against the Modern World [9]+ [10], but without mentioning the page number. Could you either add them to the corresponding references or give them in this TP and I shall do it? Thank you, Hamza Alaoui ( talk) 14:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Even if there's a caveat that not all scholars consider him a Traditionalist. I assume he was removed at some point? He's become more influential than most if not all of these other figures. Prezbo ( talk) 14:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
As English is not my mother tongue and I'm not interested in people like Evola, Dugin or Bannon, I'm afraid I won't be able to help you develop the article, but I will be able to give you my opinion from time to time. As I'm sure you're aware, one should finish the article before editing the lede, as the lede is only a summary of the article (and shouldn't therefore contain any references). As for my opinion of Sedgwick, it is not as favorable as yours. I wish you the best, should you decide to go ahead. Regards,-- Hamza Alaoui ( talk) 15:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC) PS. This summary might interest you [18] -- Hamza Alaoui ( talk) 15:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Why not rewrite "20th century philosphy" as simply "perennialism", for traditionalism has not been confined to the 20th century and is still an ongoing movement. StrongALPHA ( talk) 14:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Traditionalism (perennialism) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All authentic religious traditions are true sounds tautological to me — Ashley Y 06:58, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge Ken Wilber refers a lot to the Philosophia Perennis and seems to support it. Shall he be mentioned in the article? Luis Dantas 29 June 2005 19:36 (UTC)
Yes. Wilber mentions Guenon several times in The Atman Project: A Transpersonal View of Human Development (1980). Here's one example from that book:
It follows, then, that almost all of the data generated by orthodox Western psychology pertains only to the gross realm. Huston Smith is quite clear on that point.352 So is René Guénon: Western psychologists "recognize . . . scarcely anything except the corporeal modality [the gross bodymind]." That is, Western psychology aims at what Guénon calls the "corporeal individuality," very like Aurobindo's "physical ego." As Guénon so bluntly but correctly puts it: "As for modern Western psychology, it deals only with quite a restricted portion of the human individuality, where the mental faculty is in direct relationship with the corporeal modality, and given the methods it employs, it is incapable of going any further."168
He also mentions Coomaraswamy.
Related to this, I would very much like to see a reference for the statement: "This movement also influenced Ken Wilber..." I believe it's accurate (as demonstrated above); I'd just like to know more. Clocke ( talk) 11:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What about Leopold Ziegler? -- 195.4.151.116 13:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
A few things. Could someone explain why it was decided to merge this article with the one on Radical Traditionalism? There ought to have been discussion of the proposed merger before anything got redirected, but apparently User:Sam Spade put up the {{ merge}} templates earlier today, and effected the merger within 15 minutes, which seems to be against the spirit and letter of the policy at WP:MM. If I'd had a chance to comment, I'd have pointed out that they don't actually seem to be the same thing. The Traditionalists seem more like philosophers or anthropologists, while Radical Traditionalism, as I understand it, is very much an active movement. True, they have a single common member in Julius Evola, but this means that the groups are a full generation of thinkers apart. It's possible that they have a strong connection, and maybe even deserve to share an article, but I don't think there's sufficient commonality to justify merging the content completely. -- Cantara 01:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The merging policy only requires discussion if the merging editor thinks there is uncertainty regarding the moves appropriateness. I had none. It seems you do however. I am going to revert this page to the post merge version, but will leave the Radical traditionalism page as is to see if you can make a case for its unique status. How familiar are you with these particulars? As best as I can tell the only difference between the two groups is Michael Moynihan, who may not have much to do with René Guénon or Julius Evola personally (he doesn't look old enough ;) They do have alot to do with each other however, as evidenced @ Julius_Evola. Sam Spade 06:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
heh, no need for voting, if you feel they are distinct enough, I'll take your word on it. I'm not familiar with the tyr newsletter, McNallen or Moynihan, and simply assumed that having the same name, same Evola, and similar focus ment that they were closely related movements. Sam Spade 12:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The traditionalist school is a rejection of modernist thought as well, but also of iconoclasm and religious divisions. It is perhaps best understood as mysticism, and an alternative from " new age" foolishness for those seeking greater spiritual depth. A good analogy is that the Traditionalist school is to new age as Ásatrú is to wicca. Similar on the surface to those with a shallow understanding based on the advertising of the latter, modernist trends, but possessed of very significant core differences of philosophy, practice and historicity. Sam Spade 21:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Neither the Traditionalism or Radical Traditionalism articles seem to be complete or particularly useful, and perhaps written from points of view within the philosophies. In particular, I find it odd that this article links to an attack on Sedgwick's book but doesn't actually discuss his findings in the body of the article; in this, it appears to violate NPOV. 03:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe the two articles should be merged and i beleive that there sould be explicit and not sanitized or buried information linking both branhs of traditionalistm with Fascism, Neo-Nazisim, and anti-Semitism. Catherineyronwode 00:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Bloodfox, you have read what i wrote incorrectly. I did not propose to delete the Traditional School page. In fact, i even added to it today. Th Radical traditionalism page, however, is not up to par, in my opinion.
You also ask what Raditical Traditionalism has to do with Fascism, Nazism, and anti-Semitism. The answer is as clear as the nose on your face. From the talk:Radical Traditionalism article itself, i quote:
Please look up Julius Evola and you will see the connection; Evola supported italian Fascism, was employed by the Nazi SS, and promoted anti-Semitism. If the Radical traditionalist movement avows that it owes its thinking to Evola's precepts, it will logically share the affiliations he himself openly acknowledged.
Catherineyronwode 01:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The current edit of Libertarian National Socialist Green Party describes its website nazi.org as "a gathering place for Traditionalists [piped link to the article here] and adherents of thinkers such as Julius Evola and Savitri Devi." I have to wonder if editors here might have something to say about this. If this is accepted fact, perhaps this article should reference it. Samaritan 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I think "Traditionalist School" is a serious misnomer, as Guénon and Coomaraswamy, though contemporaries and admirers of each other's work, hardly constituted a 'school'. Coomaraswamy seriously disputed Guénon's repudiation of an authentic tradition in Buddhism (G. did later revise his view). I do not even think the two ever met. Schuon, a generation younger than the others, had a serious parting of ways with Guénon early on, and presented himself as head of a spiritual tariqa in the Sufi tradition. Guénon and Coomaraswamy never accepted disciples nor claimed any particular spiritual authority. It would be better to speak of 'perennialism', since they all do espouse the supremacy of a perennial philosophy. 'Traditionalism' already has a clear-cut reference in the world of Roman Catholicism. Indeed Catholic Traditionalists are usually quite averse to all that someone like Guénon stood for.
Ah, I'm sorry, I suppose I came to the wrong page. I was under the impression I was at Wikipedia, which is, ostensibly, an encyclopedia. Further, I thought I had clicked on the talk page, which is suppose to discuss suggested edits and not serve as a forum for people to push their specific ideology or specific prejudices against a school of thought or opinion. It appears, however, that I instead clicked on some blatantly biased and leftist URL that is totally committed towards censoring and slandering pages they disagree with. Could anyone please redirect me towards the NPV Wikipedia? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.14.177.162 (
talk) 06:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Can anybody start a stub article on Magical idealism? Thanks. -- 201.51.221.66 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
While dyed in the wool Neo-Trads have a problem with Quinn and Sedgwick, the fact is that their books on the subject must be referenced in any article on the Traditionalist school . Thamarih 07:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Second the above statement, at least as it pertains to Sedgwick's Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century, which is a work of critical scholarship. The Quinn book (The Only Tradition) is more akin to hagiography, or even boosterism -- though it still belongs here, nonetheless. Clocke ( talk) 11:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This article does a good job of discussing who followed the traditionalist school, when they used it, and why, but it never actually says what it is! I also found it difficult to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayley k88 ( talk • contribs) 02:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
etc.
- TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 23:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Desde la Torre ( talk) 17:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This weak limpwristed typical wikipedian article has sucked all the juice out of its subject once again, for the sake of neo-Trotskyite conformism.
Of course the Traditionalist School is necessarily EXTREME RIGHTIST...in terms of today's moribund distinctions. The clearly aristocratic Hierarchicalism of the Dharmic Caste Structure openly exposited by the Traditionalist thinkers and its implications for our modernist conception of "Democracy" are absolutely obliterated mendaciously into nothingness by this counterfeit grotesque mock-scholarship! Another loss for wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 ( talk) 02:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned back in September (see above), I have removed the "too technical" warning on top, as it no longer seems necessary. It may have been appropriate for a previous version of the article, but certainly not anymore. If anyone thinks it is still warranted, please explain here below. Desde la Torre ( talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The first quotation on this article is missing the authorship. The reference mentions the book (From the Divine to the Human) but never states who the author is (Frithjof Schuon). It should be mentioned. -- Nazroon ( talk) 15:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It should be obvious to anyone who knows about this intellectual tradition that the people concerned are commonly called "Traditionalists". This term was recently added to the opening sentence. The article has long included the term a number of times. Despite this an IP editor objects to this term without providing any evidence whatsoever. Therefore I have reverted the article to an earlier version. Yahboo ( talk) 13:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Mosesheron, I saw you added Saran to the list. As the article is focused on the school based on the writings of Guénon, Schuon and their followers, I think that the following entries should be deleted from the "See also" list because these persons or organizations don't belong to this school, nor do they claim to belong to it. They have read Guénon and others but many of their ideas are in opposition to those of this particular Traditionalist School, and the present list can only be misleading for the reader: Muhammad Ajmal, Muhammed Amin Andrabi, Hasan Askari (writer), Dark Enlightenment, Olavo de Carvalho, Development criticism, Carl W. Ernst, Antoine Faivre, Yves Guérin-Sérac, Béla Hamvas, Integral humanism (Maritain), Integral humanism (India), Integralism, Jean-Pierre Laurant, New traditionalism. What is your opinion? Regards, -- Hamza Alaoui ( talk) 11:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Schenkstroop, you say: "I reverted your edits. I have never heard of this distinction, is this something you have found in a reliable source or did you invent it yourself?". Does the fact that you have never heard of this distinction give you the right to act as if there were none? It would have been appropriate to raise the question in this Talk Page (see [1]). You should also know that the lead is a summary of the article and that the article does not mention your addition, but it does mention what you are trying to delete. Also, the lead should not state any sources since they are to be found in the article. Having said that, I can provide you with several sources that limit the "members" of the Traditionalist School to those who share the thought of Guénon-Coomaraswamy-Schuon (philosophia perennis) joined to a spiritual method. These sources speak of "Traditionalist or Perennialist School" and to avoid legitimate questions like yours, I propose to rename this page "Perennialist School". What is your opinion? I revert your edit and await your comments. Regards, Hamza Alaoui ( talk) 11:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Schenkstroop, thank you for your comments. The Traditionalist or Perennialist School is only one of the several traditionalist movements as can be seen in the following excerpts:
As to Mark Sedgwick, he writes in the book you mention, p. 22: "The Traditionalists who are discussed in this book constitute a movement in the loosest sense of the word. The Traditionalist movement has no formal structure, and since the late 1940s has had no central command. It is made up of a number of groups and individuals, united by their common debt to the work of René Guénon. Though the movement is sometimes called “Guénonian traditionalism,” most of those involved in it reject that title and prefer to call themselves “traditionalists,” [...] The history of Traditionalism falls into three stages... During the first stage, up to the 1930s, Guénon developed the Traditionalist philosophy, wrote various articles and books... During the second stage, attempts were made to put the Traditionalist philosophy into practice, principally in two very different contexts: Sufi Islam, as an example of Oriental metaphysics, and European fascism, as a form of revolt...".
Pages xiii-xiv: Sedgwick’s list of traditionalists include “Dugin, Burrow, Blavatsky, Wirth, Encausse, Sebottendorf, Séligny, Pauwels, Freda...”. Their convictions being foreign, when not opposed, to those of Guénon, one sees that Sedgwick's study is not limited to the “members” of the Traditionalist School understood in its Guénonian sense. As he writes on his blog: “I have always made a distinction between Traditionalists (initial upper case, those who are inspired by Guénon and others discussed on this Blog) and traditionalists (initial lower case, those who emphasize tradition in a sense other than that in which Guénon used it).”
So far I have restricted myself to the level of ideas (theory, doctrine). But the other essential face of the TS is the absolute necessity of a spiritual practice based on both the exoteric rites of a religion and its esoteric dimension. This combination of doctrine and method form the religio perennis, “conceived as the conjunction of a metaphysical doctrine and a means of spiritual realization” (P. Laude, Keys, p. 351 - many more sources available but my message is already long enough!). Thus people interested in politics like Evola, Dugin, Bannon, Carvalho are certainly traditionalists - and may even be the founder of their own "Traditionalist School" - but they are not part of the TS understood in the sense explained above. You can also look at [2].
So TS = sophia (religio, philosophia) perennis. I have observed that, to avoid misinterpretations, it has become increasingly common to speak of Perennialist School instead of Traditionalist School. This is, for instance, why the corresponding French WP page changed its name from "Traditionalisme (pérennialisme)" to "Pérennialisme (spiritualité)", and this is why I suggest changing the name of the English page as well. WP:en has presently the following articles: 1) Traditionalist School (perennialism) [3], 2) Tradition (perennialism) [4], 3) Perennial philosophy [5], which includes a section Traditionalist School [6], 4) Traditionalist conservatism [7], and several others: [8] - it is a bit confusing... Schenkstroop (and anyone else of course), before we go any further, can you please share your thoughts on all of this? Thank you, -- Hamza Alaoui ( talk) 16:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello StrongALPHA, you have referenced 4 times Sedgwick's Against the Modern World [9]+ [10], but without mentioning the page number. Could you either add them to the corresponding references or give them in this TP and I shall do it? Thank you, Hamza Alaoui ( talk) 14:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Even if there's a caveat that not all scholars consider him a Traditionalist. I assume he was removed at some point? He's become more influential than most if not all of these other figures. Prezbo ( talk) 14:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
As English is not my mother tongue and I'm not interested in people like Evola, Dugin or Bannon, I'm afraid I won't be able to help you develop the article, but I will be able to give you my opinion from time to time. As I'm sure you're aware, one should finish the article before editing the lede, as the lede is only a summary of the article (and shouldn't therefore contain any references). As for my opinion of Sedgwick, it is not as favorable as yours. I wish you the best, should you decide to go ahead. Regards,-- Hamza Alaoui ( talk) 15:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC) PS. This summary might interest you [18] -- Hamza Alaoui ( talk) 15:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Why not rewrite "20th century philosphy" as simply "perennialism", for traditionalism has not been confined to the 20th century and is still an ongoing movement. StrongALPHA ( talk) 14:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)