Talk:Traditionalism (perennialism)

Tautological

All authentic religious traditions are true sounds tautological to me —Ashley Y 06:58, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

Ken Wilber

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)

No. To my knowledge, Wilber's never mentioned "the Traditionalist School". --goethean ॐ 18:56, 18 July 2005 (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)

Leopold Ziegler

What about Leopold Ziegler? --195.4.151.116 13:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Radical Traditionalism

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)

Since there has been no response for two days, I'm going to separate the two articles again. If anyone wants to revisit the possibility of merging them, I hope that they will give other interested parties a chance to participate in the discussion. Questions can also be directed to my talk page. --Cantara 00:55, 6 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)

Moynihan is just one of many faces involved with Radical Traditionalism, Stephen McNallen, for example, is perhaps even better known than Moynihan. :bloodofox: 08:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The two are sufficiently different to warrant two seperate articles. Most obviously, Radical Traditionalism is not about universalism - Quite the opposite. Merging the two articles has made this article into an absolute incoherent mess. Like Cantara, I've reverted the article to its pre-merge form. :bloodofox: 08:32, 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)

I'm going to try and read Evola's Men Among the Ruins within the next week, or at least skim it. He seems to be the middleman for these two groups, and I should be able to get a sense of how much similarity there is between what inspired him and what he inspired. Sam Spade, you seem perhaps more knowledgable on the Traditionalist School. What, if anything, was their philosophy a reaction to? Evola is consciously reacting the the "liberal" revolutions of 1789 and 1848, while the Radical Traditionalists are in opposition more to the current state of things than any one force (or so it seems). I'm also considering writing either to Moynihan or to McNallen for advice about further reading (more because I'm interested, but also for the sake of clearing up this interesting question of intellectual geneology).

For the moment, I think it's best to keep the articles as they are now (i.e. not equating the two as the intro to TS was doing a bit ago), but certainly to acknowledge the connection in the "See Also" sections. Cantara 20:42, 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)

What? You want to merge two totally seperate subjects because you feel that the article needs some sort of improvement or, even better, delete them entirely? They're two seperate movements from two totally seperate circles. If you can't muster up the effort to do a little research on your own, it's no problem of any who contributed to this article. What does Radical Traditionalism have to do with fascism or national socialism? Nothing whatsoever, it's at odds entirely with these political systems and this should be pretty obvious from the outset. :bloodofox: 01:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Radical traditionalism, Traditional School, and Fascism

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:

Radical traditionalism takes its philosophical cue from philosophers such as Nietzsche, Georges Dumézil, Alain de Benoist and Julius Evola.

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)

I disagree. However, let's continue this discussion on the appropriate page. See: Talk:Radical Traditionalism

:bloodofox: 04:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

nazi.org as a gathering place for Traditionalists?

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)

Please DO mention it! I think that there is quite a lot of use at Wiki of the term Traditional as a polite, sanitized cover for Neo-Fascist, neo-Nazi, and anti-Semitic thought. Catherineyronwode 00:41, 28 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.

yes, the article appears mistitled. Perhaps move to "Integral Traditionalism"? Or "Perennialim (Traditionalism)"? This ideology indeed serves as a sanitized version of neo-fascist and neo-nazi thought. Just as neo-nazis these days will speak of a "Indo-European tradition" instead of an "Aryan race", while still referring to the exact same notion. Our articles on Indo-European topics are in serious danger of being subtly subverted by this sort of stuff. dab (𒁳) 08:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Magical idealism - need stub

Can anybody start a stub article on Magical idealism? Thanks. -- 201.51.221.66 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sedgwick & Quinn

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)

Pointing out the Obvious

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)

Various errors

• Coomaraswamy was not a Hindu, he was Buddhist,
• "Perenialism" or "Traditionalist school" is an invention of Sedgewick and has no precise basis: Guenon never used the term.
• "Supreme Identity" is not an invention of Guénon...
• Perenialism is a controversial notion not used very much.

etc.

- TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 23:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

September 2011 edit

• Not a major overhaul by any means, but I have added several references, notes, and lots of wikilinks, some to the French Wikipédia. Given this, and as I hope to keep adding citations over the next few weeks, I have taken out the references warning at the top. I don't see it is necessary anymore.
• As for content, I expanded into a full new paragraph a solitary sentence under the heading "Trad. and Religion". With references.
• Anyone who is against taking out the "Too technical" warning at the top? This article is hardly technical!
• Sentences using "it could be argued" and similar, should be reworded and substantiated, or simply modified or taken out. After all that is the point of the encyclopedia according to the Five Pillars! The articles are not the place to argue, but to present referenced assertions. Did I get it wrong?

Desde la Torre (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Article is a JOKE

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)

Too technical

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)

First quotation

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)

"Traditionalists"

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)

"See also" list

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)

You are right. Many of these individuals and ideas, in fact, are diametrically opposed to the Traditionalist School represented in this article. Although, MOS:SEEALSO is unclear on several aspects, it states, however, that "tangentially related topics" can be added to the See also section, but they must be "related to the article's topic." Ultimately it is "a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." I think most of the the pages you have mentioned here are not even "tangentially" related to the Traditionalist school. I am still a little confused about Saran. If we consider him to be a representative of a particular school of thought within the broader Traditionalist framework, I believe we can include him in the See also. However, I could be mistaken. Mosesheron (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I shall thus delete those names. I then intend adding: William Chittick, James Cutsinger, Michael Oren Fitzgerald, Lord Northbourne, Harry Oldmeadow, Marco Pallis, Whitall Perry, Huston Smith, Michel Valsan. Do you agree? Concerning Saran, his ideas were those of the Tr. School although he was not linked to that school the same way as most of the others were. I would leave him.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I see no problem in that. All the best. Mosesheron (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Definition

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)

The core of your argument is that the "Traditionalist School" is something all together different from "Traditionalism". This seems very strange to me because they are obviously referring to the same thing, namely a twentieth-century intellectual current founded by René Guénon. But again, if you have a reliable secondary source that makes this distinction, please let me know. Otherwise, I propose we stick to the classification made in Mark Sedgwick's Against the Modern World, a reliable source on Traditionalism, written by a professor in religious studies and published by Oxford University Press. Schenkstroop (talk) 18:15, 26 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:

• Patrick Laude, French academic, Pathways to an Inner Islam, p. 131: "... what will later become known in the Anglo-Saxon world as the “perennialist school,” that is, those authors who have asserted the existence of a universal and perennial wisdom underlying the various religious expressions of divine revelation ..."; p. 19: "Schuon’s opus has continued and widened Guénon’s work in a way that articulates more explicitly the central concept of the so-called Perennialist School, that is, the transcendent unity of religions..." . Keys to the Beyond, p. 97 : "A theoretical framework conducive to this exploration is the notion of the perennial religion, as reformulated in our times by the current of thought referred to as the “perennialist” or traditionalist school."
• Harry Oldmeadow, Australian academic, Frithjof Schuon and the Perennial Philosophy, p. xiii: "In this work I have used the terms “traditionalist and “perennialist” interchangeably. It should also be noted that if we sometimes refer to these perennialists as a “school” or “movement”, this is merely an expedient: their unanimous testimony about the sophia perennis could not be encompassed by a mere “school” or “movement”."
• Martin Lings, English scholar, The Underlying Religion, p. xi: "The essays compiled in this anthology are intended to provide an accessible introduction to the “traditionalist” or “perennialist” school of comparative religious thought [...] which has variously been called the philosophia perennis (perennial philosophy), sophia perennis (perennial wisdom), or religio perennis (perennial religion)."
• William Stoddart, Scottish author, Remembering in a World of Forgetting, p.51: "What has become known as the “perennialist” school of thought was founded by the French philosopher and orientalist René Guénon (1886-1951) and brought to full fruition by the German philosopher and poet Frithjof Schuon (1907-1998)"; p. 52: "a fundamental concept of the perennialist school is that of “the transcendent unity of the religions”. It affirms that, at the center of each religion, there is a core of truth (about God and man, prayer and morality) which is identical. The various world religions are indeed different: this precisely is their reason for being. It is their essential core that is identical, not the outward form."
• Michael O. Fitzgerald, American author and editor, Frithjof Schuon Messenger of the Perennial Philosophy, p. 193: "The term “Perennialism”, when used to refer to the “school of thought” associated with Guénon and Schuon, has the advantage of expressing a direct relationship with this school’s presiding idea, that of the philosophia perennis and the related ideas of the sophia perennis and religio perennis."

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)

This discussion is heading towards a wrong direction. Although Traditionalism, or more precisely Guénonian Traditionalism, is often identified with perennial philosophy, in academic literature, it is recognised as a distinct strand of perennial philosophy, which came to be known as Traditionalist School. So this article cannot be renamed as Perennialist school. Hamza Alaoui seems to be missing that point. Schenkstroop, on the other hand, appears to be neglecting the different strands among the Traditionalists (these distinctions are made in secondary scholarly sources). We should not solely rely on Sedgwick's list, without qualifying it in some ways based on other scholarly sources. However, the article should shed some light on other followers of Guénon as well who are also referred to as "Traditionalists". This list includes authors such as Eliade, Evola, and Dugin. Because they were/are in fact heavily influenced by Guénon and denounces the premises of the modern world as much as Guénon and his Spiritualist followers (such as Schoun Nasr Burckhardt and so on) did/do. In conclusion, the article needs to be expanded and improved. It must also reflect how individuals such as Evola and Dugin parted their ways with Guénon, despite being heavily influenced by him in critiquing the philosophical foundations of the modern world. After doing that, the lead then must offer a summary of all differing viewpoints. Until then, the not so well informed list by Sedgwick is to be discarded from the lead. Because it adds nothing to the article. Please expand the article first. Then and only then there can be a meaningful discussion. 103.87.212.251 (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Sedgwick source

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)

Since you haven't replied to this message but are contributing to WP these days, I take it that you're not going to reply. So I searched in Sedgwick's book (pdf) for the passages corresponding to your additions. 1) "Arturo Reghini was himself an ardent member of the Italian Fascist Party": nowhere did I find this assertion. 2) Morocco...boutchichiyya = page 242, spelled Budshishiyya. 3) UK...King Charles = page 214, but nowhere do I find any mention of "with other esoteric approaches". 4) Former Eastern Bloc: 4a. Dugin: probably page 237, but I found nowhere that "Dugin promotes a traditionalist view of the country as engaged in an apocalyptic battle against the United States"; probably original research; 4b. I found no mention of Voican Voiculescu.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Evola should probably be in lede

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)

Hello Prezbo, for me, the Traditionalist School is characterized first and foremost by its spiritual dimension, both theoretical and practical; then by its critique of modernism and the restoration of traditional values; and also by its political non-commitment. As to Evola, he is also interested in the spiritual dimension, in metaphysics, but only on a theoretical level, and his political commitment is total. If one wishes, one could consider him as the founder of the Evola Traditionalist School but not as a member of the Guénonian Traditionalist School, which is the subject of this article. The fact that "he has become more influential than most if not all of these other figures" is thus not relevant in the present case. This is my opinion. Regards, --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

All I know about Traditionalism is what I've read in Mark Sedgwick's book. It seems like his view is that there is a political quietist/spiritual strand of Traditionalism (Fritjof Schuon) and a politically active strand (Evola, Dugin). Sedgwick's work seems like the best academic secondary source on this topic, so I would suggest following that categorization. There's clearly a line of influence from Guenon to Evola even if their thought-worlds are very different, therefore I would say it makes more sense to consider them both part of "the Traditionalist School" and put Evola in the lede as one of the most (unfortunately, in my view) influential thinkers in that school. Prezbo (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You say: "It seems like his [Sedgwick's] view is that there is a political quietist/spiritual strand of Traditionalism (Fritjof Schuon) and a politically active strand (Evola, Dugin)". I agree with this, but it concerns "Traditionalism", as you say, and not the "TS". To save me having to search through Sedgwick's book, can you tell me on which page he considers Evola to be part of the TS? You also write: "Evola... one of the most influential thinkers in that school". Evola has no influence on the members of that school; his influence concerns other branches of Traditionalism. Would a new article entitled e.g. "Traditionalism (politics)" [11] be a solution? Regards, --Hamza Alaoui (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, so you consider "Traditionalism" and "the Traditionalist School" two separate entities. My question would be, which secondary sources are you drawing on in that evaluation? Or is it just your own interpretation of the primary sources, i.e. original research.

I would suggest renaming this article "Traditionalism (perennialism)," with the scope of the article corresponding to the scope of Sedgwick's books, which seem like the best secondary sources available. Prezbo (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer your first question: I have been studying the perennialist school of thought for a long time now and am no longer able to tell you where I got this conviction from; I would have to do some research. "Traditionalism (perennialism)": why not? It would be a way of including (almost) everyone. But one must also have to take into account the existence of the following articles: 1) Tradition (perennialism) [12], 2) Perennial philosophy [13], which includes a section Traditionalist School [14], 3) Traditionalist conservatism [15], and several others: [16]. Regards,--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to consider other viewpoints. I'm less worried about the article's title than its scope and content. I think it would be useful for Wikipedia to have an article about the thing Mark Sedgwick calls "Traditionalism," which is: a range of anti-modern philosophies that can be traced back to Rene Guenon. Frithjof Schuon and Aleksandr Dugin are clearly very different people, but they're both intellectual descendants of Guenon (according to Sedgwick, anyway), which I think is interesting. So I would suggest having more content in the lede and the article proper about people like Evola, Dugin, Steve Bannon, and less about people like Martin Lings, Marco Pallis, etc. I'm sure you have a much better command of the primary sources than I do but I think that would bring the article more in line with the secondary scholarship, which is led by Sedgwick. For anyone reading this who doesn't understand what I'm talking about, here's an interview with Sedgwick that offers a good survey of his views.[17] Prezbo (talk) 13:53, 3 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)

"Traditionalism" is the most common way people refer to this phenomenon.

See for instance Mark Sedgwick, Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century, and Traditionalism: The Radical Project for Restoring Sacred Order Schenkstroop (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The brackets

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)

Agree that this would make more sense. Prezbo (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree, renamed. Schenkstroop (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)