Is Evola's work concerning Nietzsche as a sort of continuing or setting it right a correct take? It's difficult to accept the metaphysical underpinnings expressed by the Traditionalist school and having them layered over Nietzsche's work. Even Guenon comments by saying guys like Thucydides (and by similarity, Nietzsche) often view the world as being in Flux as apposed to there being a world of "Being" that is above, which is eternal. Would love to see discussion here to both try to make more sense of these concepts and attempt to see what is true. This might be a dogshit take by me but I feel like the argument really comes down to Pantheism vs. Panentheism. Could be horribly wrong but as long as anon's not only call me a faggot but explain why I'm a faggot is welcomed.
My conclusion after reading Nietzsche was that both "everything is in flux" and "everything stems from eternal forms" are just expressions of the will to power, an interpretation which at once refutes both stances, since it would suggest a third stance, some kind of oscillating in-between or side-stepping of the dichotomy altogether (like quantum science to Newtonian). But Nietzsche also admits somewhere that the will to power is in itself an expression. There's really no stable ground with Nietzsche.
>>23982122I mean, the organizing power of life and just life itself gives rise to the assertion that whatever the driving force is behind it is almost like it's an independent force unto itself rather than just a coming together of other physical forces. Mix that in with the mystery that is consciousness and you end up with something that is definitely strange and hints at something that is "beyond". The Will to Power being merely an expression of it both mystifies it even more while also showing how far Nietzsche is willing to go to be the absolute biggest cunt every chance he can get in making everything he comes up with hard to follow.
>>23982122I think the will to power is Nietzsche's on vision of metaphysics that touches upon the notion that "true" knowledge comes from intuition or intuitive knowledge similar to how a lot of Perennial thinkers like Evola talk about the "supra-rational". The difference between the two seem to only be in one having root in a naturalist worldview and the other in a metaphysical but both representing the same thing.
>>23982194>>I mean, the organizing power of life and just life itself gives rise to the assertion that whatever the driving force is behind it is almost like it's an independent force unto itself rather than just a coming together of other physical forces. Mix that in with the mystery that is consciousness and you end up with something that is definitely strange and hints at something that is "beyond".all of this is strange for the average atheist bug infatuated with the jewish ideas like ''free will'' and ''will power''. Buddhism solved consciousness, suffering, being, becoming and ''life'' 2500 years ago.
