Talk:Traditionalism (perennialism)

message: 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)
thread_title: Ken Wilber

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: nazi.org as a gathering place for Traditionalists?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sedgwick & Quinn 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pointing out the Obvious 

message: *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)
thread_title: Various errors

message: *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)
thread_title: September 2011 edit

message: 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)
thread_title: Article is a JOKE

message: 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)
thread_title: Too technical

message: 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)
thread_title:  First quotation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Traditionalists" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I see no problem in that. All the best. Mosesheron (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" list 

message: 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 ). 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Hello StrongALPHA, you have referenced 4 times Sedgwick's Against the Modern World +, 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sedgwick source 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree that this would make more sense. Prezbo (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, renamed. Schenkstroop (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The brackets