The British Traditionalist Charles le Gai Eaton had a lot to say about this kind of thing, especially in his outstanding 'King of the Castle: Choice and Responsibility in the Modern World' (1978). The whole of Chapter 6 - 'Knowledge and its Counterfeits' - is relevant. I'll restrict myself to just a couple of paragraphs:
'We (moderns) make certain deductions from the facts available to our senses in this thin slice of time. It is assumed that the people of earlier times tried to do the same, and since they did not deduce what we have deduced from these facts they must necessarily have been our inferiors. It is taken for granted that their beliefs were based, as ours are, upon the observation of physical phenomena. They were not very good observers and persistently drew the wrong conclusions from such facts as they did observe; they belonged, it is said, to a 'pre-logical' stage of human development ...
''This childish aspect of modernism is nothing if not naive in its view of the past. It takes for granted that if all we want is ice-cream or its equivalents, then this is all that people ever wanted. They did not known how to produce it quickly, hygienically and in quantity. We do. They were not clever enough to invent motor cars and aeroplanes. We are (without ever asking ourselves if such journeys are really necessary). They thought the earth was the centre of the universe. We know better.'
The earlier Traditionalists, particularly the British Traditionalists, such as Gai Eaton, Lord Northbourne, and Martin Lings certainly had a lot of perceptive insights into the nature and dangers of modernity. On the other hand, Traditionalism today seems to have lost a lot of its incipient vitality.
Please expand on who you consider a “traditionalist” today. I find myself calling myself a traditionalist. For me a traditionalist is something like Wendell Berry. What do you think?
I was specifically referring to the so-called "traditionalist school" of Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon, et al. That specific movement seems to have lost touch with its roots. Of course, lower-case "t" traditionalists, such as Wendell Berry, are not affected by this statement.
The British Traditionalist Charles le Gai Eaton had a lot to say about this kind of thing, especially in his outstanding 'King of the Castle: Choice and Responsibility in the Modern World' (1978). The whole of Chapter 6 - 'Knowledge and its Counterfeits' - is relevant. I'll restrict myself to just a couple of paragraphs:
'We (moderns) make certain deductions from the facts available to our senses in this thin slice of time. It is assumed that the people of earlier times tried to do the same, and since they did not deduce what we have deduced from these facts they must necessarily have been our inferiors. It is taken for granted that their beliefs were based, as ours are, upon the observation of physical phenomena. They were not very good observers and persistently drew the wrong conclusions from such facts as they did observe; they belonged, it is said, to a 'pre-logical' stage of human development ...
''This childish aspect of modernism is nothing if not naive in its view of the past. It takes for granted that if all we want is ice-cream or its equivalents, then this is all that people ever wanted. They did not known how to produce it quickly, hygienically and in quantity. We do. They were not clever enough to invent motor cars and aeroplanes. We are (without ever asking ourselves if such journeys are really necessary). They thought the earth was the centre of the universe. We know better.'
The earlier Traditionalists, particularly the British Traditionalists, such as Gai Eaton, Lord Northbourne, and Martin Lings certainly had a lot of perceptive insights into the nature and dangers of modernity. On the other hand, Traditionalism today seems to have lost a lot of its incipient vitality.
Please expand on who you consider a “traditionalist” today. I find myself calling myself a traditionalist. For me a traditionalist is something like Wendell Berry. What do you think?
I was specifically referring to the so-called "traditionalist school" of Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon, et al. That specific movement seems to have lost touch with its roots. Of course, lower-case "t" traditionalists, such as Wendell Berry, are not affected by this statement.
Noted, thanks for clarifying!