It is easy to be unaware that up until World War II, idealism was the dominant philosophical position of Europe. In the 18th and 19th century, the Germans – particularly Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, Schopenhauer – took the leading role in its development. Later, the Britons such as Green, Bradley, Bosanquet, Collingwood took it in their own direction. In France, it usually went by the name of personalism or spiritualism. In Italy, while Evola was a young man, philosophy was dominated by the idealists Benedetto Croce and Giovanni Gentile. It’s hard to believe that at their peak, they were world-renowned philosophers. Although friends and collaborators, they split over the question of Fascism. Gentile was for a while the education minister and his philosophical system was very influential in moulding the intellectual roots of Fascism.
Yet idealism was not a modern development; the mainstream of Western philosophy is the history of idealistic thought. When the European orientalists began studying, translating, and cataloguing the early Indo-Europeans systems of the Vedas, its compatibility with idealism was noted. So, idealism can rightly be seen as “our” tradition and competitors such as realism and materialism are more like a persistent anti-tradition. I would recommend the short book “Nobilitas” by Alexander Jacob for a summary of this tradition from Plato until World War II. Ironically, Prof. Jacob is a Hindu who is keeping the Western philosophical tradition alive, when Europeans are abandoning it.
Evola’s was heir to this tradition and his intellectual development took place in the milieu of Italian idealism in the 1920s. In order to study idealism thoroughly, Evola learned German so he could read the philosophical sources in their original language. Out of his studies, he created his own system which he named absolute idealism, or “magical idealism”. In “The Individual and the Becoming of the World”, Evola ties together the main elements of his system. One can perhaps recognize Schopenhauer when Evola speaks of in the world as will and his representation, or Stirner in the idea of the Absolute Ego, and Plotinus in the idea of privation and the evil of matter.
But Evola was not content in outlining an abstract intellectual system. Ultimately, there can be no system per se, since what is important is the will and the development of its freedom to create, remake, and define the world. This means that without having made the effort at self-transformation through the various phases of consciousness, then his system cannot be properly comprehended. So ultimately, Evola’s system cannot be reduced to a set of propositions to learn and memorize. Nor is there any technique, drug, or practice that will develop the will and lead to higher stages of consciousness.
In our day, when “tough minded” thinkers are drawn to science and materialism (the neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins was recently “voted” the most intelligent man in Britain), the claims of idealism can seem incredible. Since Evola simply assumes a basic familiarity with this tradition, it may be difficult sometimes to see what he is getting at. For those new to idealism, I would recommend “The Philosophy of Schopenhauer” by Bryan Magee for a clear overview of the presuppositions and methods of idealism. Whether or not Evola adds to this tradition in a coherent and constructive way is for each man—who has made the requisite effort —to decide.
Thanks for mentioning Dr. Jacob on your blog. I listened to interview which I also saw on your blog [ http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/05/29/dr-alexander-jacob-interviewed-by-dr-david-duke/ ] and they speak of the ideas which you write about here.
I have long been interested in the longstanding conflict between Western/European idealism/optimism and Jewish materialism/pessimism/cynicism, and Dr. Frank is doing good work in this area of intellectual, philosophical, and spiritual history. Thanks for introducing me to him.
I’ve long maintained that antisemitism is a form of idealism because the antisemite seeks to understand and stamp out the Jewish ideas of materialism/pessimism/cynicism, which has unfortunately replaced traditional Western/European idealism and optimism in the past few decades due to the terribly widespread influence of Jewry in the media, academia, the government, etc. Note though that I do not necessarily speak here of Christianity as part of traditional Western/European values because it is a Jewish movement, though Christianity is in some senses quite idealistic because of its anti-materialistic stance, belief in an afterlife, and the anti-Jewish elements found therein (which is why Jews have opposed Christianity so fervently across the centuries — Jesus truly was a revolutionary for opposing the disgusting Jewish ethos, which makes me believe that he was most likely partly non-Jewish in an ethnic sense).
On similar note:
Spinoza is probably the most eminent Jewish philosopher ever produced in The West (and he was actually a fairly mediocre philosopher to tell the truth). He was born the son of Portuguese Jews (Sephardic Conversos/Marranos) who eventually settled in Holland.
Spinoza is very often accused of being ‘anti-Jewish’ because of the content within some of his writings (especially the THEOLOGICAL-POLITICAL TREATISE). These accusations stem from the fact that he is rather blunt regarding Jews and the Jewish Question in that work.
Well, to make a long story short, he was eventually cut-off (excommunicated) from the Dutch Jewish community because of his philosophical ideas and his critical/skeptical stance toward Judaism. Since he was entirely cut off from Holland’s Jews it’s obvious that something about Spinoza’s philosphy made the Dutch Jewish community very nervous and angry, because excommunication (Hebrew: ‘cherem’) was rare at that time. Some accused him of being sympathetic toward Christianity (possible since he was the son of Conversos) but he never foramlly converted as he was an avowed skeptic and rationalist so it isn’t clear.
So why was he cut off from the Jewish community? I think it is because his philosophy as laid out in the more intelligible portions of THE ETHICS exalts idealism, cheerfulness and optimism, nature, and spiritualism (a sort-of pantheism), all of which are Western/European ideals and NOT Jewish ones (which include, as stated above, pessimism, cynicism, and materialism).
Some quick thoughts on Nietzsche:
A brilliant writer for sure — however, I believe that he was more of a ‘raver’ instead of a ‘philosopher’ though since he never really systematized anything. Life cut too short by madness and the associated tragedies, I suppose.
Anyhow, echoing some themes from the previous posts on this thread, Nietzsche was not much of an idealist or an optimist — and so he was more of a pessimist and cynic. Thus, he was a philosemite and not an antisemite, of course! And he utterly despised Christianity just like the Jews, too.
Anti-Semites have made some very good use of Nietzsche.