What do you think?
Rate this book
[Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul] [By: Evola, Julius] [September, 2003]
Julius Evola tratta in quest'opera del problema dei comportamenti che per un tipo umano differenziato si addicono in un'epoca di dissoluzione, come l'attuale. Il libro, però, venne pensato all'inizio degli anni Cinquanta. Cavalcare la tigre illustra la "via secca", cioè quella intellettuale, interiore, personale. Il detto orientale "cavalcare la tigre" vale per il non farsi travolgere e annientare da quanto non si può controllare esso quindi comporta l'assumere anche i processi più estremi e spesso irreversibili in corso per farli agire nel senso di una liberazione, anziché, come per la grande maggioranza dei nostri contemporanei, in quello di una distruzione spirituale. Cavalcare la tigre può dunque venire considerato, quasi uno speciale "manuale di sopravvivenza" per tutti coloro i quali, considerandosi in qualche modo ancora spiritualmente collegati al mondo della tradizione, sono costretti però a vivere nel mondo moderno.
Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1961
289 people are currently reading
6337 people want to read
About the author
Julius Evola
210 books1,015 followersJulius Evola (19 May 1898 – 11 June 1974), born Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola, was an Italian philosopher and esoteric scholar. Born in Rome to a family of the Sicilian landed gentry, Evola was raised a strict Catholic. Despite this, his life was characterised by 'an anti-bourgeois approach' hostile to both 'the dominant tradition of the West—Christianity and Catholicism—and to contemporary civilization—the 'modern world' of democracy and materialism'.
By turns 'engineering student, artillery officer, Dadaist poet and painter, journalist, alpinist, scholar, linguist, Orientalist, and political commentator', he has been described as a 'rare example of universality in an age of specialization'. Yet behind it all lay a singular emphasis on, and pursuit of, a 'direct relationship to the Absolute'. For Evola, 'the center of all things was not man, but rather the Transcendent.' This metaphysical conviction can be seen to have determined both Evola's stance on socio-political issues, and his antipathetic attitude towards 'all professional, sentimental and family routines'.
The author of many books on esoteric, political and religious topics (including The Hermetic Tradition, The Doctrine of Awakening and Eros and the Mysteries of Love), his best-known work remains Revolt Against the Modern World, a trenchant critique of modern civilisation that has been described as 'the gateway to his thought'. Since his death, also in Rome, his writings have influenced right-wing, reactionary and conservative political thought not only in his native Italy, but throughout continental Europe and, increasingly, the English-speaking world. Nevertheless, he should not be considered primarily as a political thinker, but rather as an exponent of the wider Traditionalist School that encompasses the work of such individuals as René Guénon, Titus Burckhardt and Frithjof Schuon.
By turns 'engineering student, artillery officer, Dadaist poet and painter, journalist, alpinist, scholar, linguist, Orientalist, and political commentator', he has been described as a 'rare example of universality in an age of specialization'. Yet behind it all lay a singular emphasis on, and pursuit of, a 'direct relationship to the Absolute'. For Evola, 'the center of all things was not man, but rather the Transcendent.' This metaphysical conviction can be seen to have determined both Evola's stance on socio-political issues, and his antipathetic attitude towards 'all professional, sentimental and family routines'.
The author of many books on esoteric, political and religious topics (including The Hermetic Tradition, The Doctrine of Awakening and Eros and the Mysteries of Love), his best-known work remains Revolt Against the Modern World, a trenchant critique of modern civilisation that has been described as 'the gateway to his thought'. Since his death, also in Rome, his writings have influenced right-wing, reactionary and conservative political thought not only in his native Italy, but throughout continental Europe and, increasingly, the English-speaking world. Nevertheless, he should not be considered primarily as a political thinker, but rather as an exponent of the wider Traditionalist School that encompasses the work of such individuals as René Guénon, Titus Burckhardt and Frithjof Schuon.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews
February 28, 2018
Don't tell anyone I read this
December 4, 2015
Evola didn't speak to modern man. What he calls aristocrats of the soul is a man of previous eras living today. Previous epochs!
The view of the archaic man is what aristocracy has always manifested. From such a vantage point, our current era maybe characterized as a waste land, void of values, of beauty, of taste and of intelligence. This is obvious wherever we turn our attention: in architecture and fine arts, in cheap, mass-manufactured products, in what music has become and last but not least in modern life-style and human relationships.
Those who can see can only stay upright "among the ruins" if they assert themselves and lead an authentic existence. This is an inner practice that takes advantage of the few opportunities this era still has to offer and on higher levels even turns negatives into positives. This is what riding the tiger symbolizes, in analogy of Tantric practices and various other paths of the "left hand".
Who should not read this book? Those who can fully identify with modern views and "values": positive thinkers, progressive minds,Tony Robbins fans, technocrats and similar.
The view of the archaic man is what aristocracy has always manifested. From such a vantage point, our current era maybe characterized as a waste land, void of values, of beauty, of taste and of intelligence. This is obvious wherever we turn our attention: in architecture and fine arts, in cheap, mass-manufactured products, in what music has become and last but not least in modern life-style and human relationships.
Those who can see can only stay upright "among the ruins" if they assert themselves and lead an authentic existence. This is an inner practice that takes advantage of the few opportunities this era still has to offer and on higher levels even turns negatives into positives. This is what riding the tiger symbolizes, in analogy of Tantric practices and various other paths of the "left hand".
Who should not read this book? Those who can fully identify with modern views and "values": positive thinkers, progressive minds,Tony Robbins fans, technocrats and similar.
April 22, 2009
Julius Evola's analysis and diagnosis of the modern world in "Ride The Tiger" is very precise (unfortunately) to say the least.
"Riding the Tiger" in modern times (some decades after the book was written) is no doubt a grand challenge only for those few unafraid to confront modern degeneracy head-on. As Nietzsche wrote in probably his most popular quote,"What doesn't kill us makes us stronger."
But as a drunken and belligerent biker once told me, "if you mess with the bull, you get the horns."
A little blood here and there never hurts.
"Riding the Tiger" in modern times (some decades after the book was written) is no doubt a grand challenge only for those few unafraid to confront modern degeneracy head-on. As Nietzsche wrote in probably his most popular quote,"What doesn't kill us makes us stronger."
But as a drunken and belligerent biker once told me, "if you mess with the bull, you get the horns."
A little blood here and there never hurts.
November 19, 2017
One of Evola's fundamental assumptions is that this material world of becoming is inherently inferior to immaterial one of transcendence and being. There is really never any explication of why this or what is exactly wrong with our material world. But of course people not oriented to these notions to begin with will likely never read this book to begin with. So getting in touch with being isn't for everyone. Of course, it used to be the purview of the priestly and warrior castes, but that's all gone to pot, so now it's up to those "aristocrats of the soul" to do it themselves, without the former cultural traditions and institutes of the world of tradition to help guide them.
The book was first published in the early 60's. This is worth mentioning, simple context aside, because it is not only still relevant today - an author's ability to distill the eternal from the temporal being the sine qua non of his access to Truth - but because it actually reads like it was written today. We are rootless, pleasure-hungry, itinerant things with no higher minded orientation than beyond our next empty fix. He looks at art, music, drug, political, religious, family, and sexual culture and finds them all as shadows of their former selves, when they might have been effective means of helping one realize transcendence (higher meaning). And Evola fucking loves transcendence and being.
I was a little worried before digging in. I had read Revolt Against the Modern World a while ago and found a fair amount of his account of the traditional world difficult: there are the myths of the hypoborean european ancestors, myths of the race of giants, absolute binaries of masculine and feminine, both people and entire cultures. It came across as eminently impractical, with speculation stated as fact, and as vehemently judgemental/all or nothing. This book, however, is entirely practical. It's about self-mastery. And his world of tradition as articulated in Revolt becomes distilled into basic ways of orientation towards life and earth and the transcendent, no archaic rituals or cultural practices needed.
Evola goes through stop gaps yet conceived to fill in for the lost world of tradition - existentialism, modern science, democracy/liberalism, art.... - and finds them to have failed. The only recourse for those "differentiated" men among us is to return to ourselves, know ourselves, create our own law, and get ourselves right with anterior, unconditioned, and absolute being. This accomplished, we can ride out anything that comes our way (one of the chapters is titled "Invulnerability").
Evola's treatment of Nietzsche is quite fair, seeing him as having stated the fundamental problem of the death of God, but not finding a way out of it: starting with a latent assumption of transcendence but then failing to find it in the material here and now of this world. Heidegger and Sartre, though acknowledging the fundamental nature of a preexistent "project" by which the individual orients himself, still maintain (Sartre) that "existence precedes essence". Evola says:
This is the "horizontal" vs "vertical" orientation that Evola so criticizes the "existentialists" for. Those "nauseant" feelings of "guilt", "debt", and "bad faith". Evola speaks of Jaspers on this point:
This won't do! Not for a hardcore motherfucker like Evola. Contra the existentialists, he posits his own, "positive" doctrines: find the transcendent dimension within oneself, posit laws by which to follow, follow them with your whole being (do not find yourself forever split and divided like the existentialists)...and then it gets sort of weird. Basically, at this point, find yourself in some limit like experiences that will force your through the fire, and either purify or destroy you. He says stuff like this in the book like it's just the way it is. And maybe it is like that. But remember, ultimately, in being, there is no law, there is just what is: "In Islam, long before nihilism, the initiatic Order of the Ismaelis used the very phrase 'Nothing exists, everything is permitted.'" This is the way it operates within Zen. I'm sure there are many other examples. His description of Karma is clear on this point as well.
So these are the essentials. You're basically on your lonesome to accomplish this stuff. As for the rest, his critique of art, politics, the sexes...it's all on point, surprisingly so. Don't exalt your ego, find meaning in higher things, be dutiful...I dunno, it's all good stuff and inspiring.
The book was first published in the early 60's. This is worth mentioning, simple context aside, because it is not only still relevant today - an author's ability to distill the eternal from the temporal being the sine qua non of his access to Truth - but because it actually reads like it was written today. We are rootless, pleasure-hungry, itinerant things with no higher minded orientation than beyond our next empty fix. He looks at art, music, drug, political, religious, family, and sexual culture and finds them all as shadows of their former selves, when they might have been effective means of helping one realize transcendence (higher meaning). And Evola fucking loves transcendence and being.
I was a little worried before digging in. I had read Revolt Against the Modern World a while ago and found a fair amount of his account of the traditional world difficult: there are the myths of the hypoborean european ancestors, myths of the race of giants, absolute binaries of masculine and feminine, both people and entire cultures. It came across as eminently impractical, with speculation stated as fact, and as vehemently judgemental/all or nothing. This book, however, is entirely practical. It's about self-mastery. And his world of tradition as articulated in Revolt becomes distilled into basic ways of orientation towards life and earth and the transcendent, no archaic rituals or cultural practices needed.
Evola goes through stop gaps yet conceived to fill in for the lost world of tradition - existentialism, modern science, democracy/liberalism, art.... - and finds them to have failed. The only recourse for those "differentiated" men among us is to return to ourselves, know ourselves, create our own law, and get ourselves right with anterior, unconditioned, and absolute being. This accomplished, we can ride out anything that comes our way (one of the chapters is titled "Invulnerability").
Evola's treatment of Nietzsche is quite fair, seeing him as having stated the fundamental problem of the death of God, but not finding a way out of it: starting with a latent assumption of transcendence but then failing to find it in the material here and now of this world. Heidegger and Sartre, though acknowledging the fundamental nature of a preexistent "project" by which the individual orients himself, still maintain (Sartre) that "existence precedes essence". Evola says:
We have seen that the obscurity already inherent in existentialism is exacerbated in Heidegger by his view of man as an entity that does not include being within himself (or behind it, as its root), but rather before it, as if being were something to be pursued and captured.p.95
This is the "horizontal" vs "vertical" orientation that Evola so criticizes the "existentialists" for. Those "nauseant" feelings of "guilt", "debt", and "bad faith". Evola speaks of Jaspers on this point:
My guilt lies in the destiny of having chosen (and of not having been able not to choose) only the one direction that corresponds to my real or possible being, and negating all the others. This is also the source of my responsibility and "debt" toward the infinite and eternal.p.92
This won't do! Not for a hardcore motherfucker like Evola. Contra the existentialists, he posits his own, "positive" doctrines: find the transcendent dimension within oneself, posit laws by which to follow, follow them with your whole being (do not find yourself forever split and divided like the existentialists)...and then it gets sort of weird. Basically, at this point, find yourself in some limit like experiences that will force your through the fire, and either purify or destroy you. He says stuff like this in the book like it's just the way it is. And maybe it is like that. But remember, ultimately, in being, there is no law, there is just what is: "In Islam, long before nihilism, the initiatic Order of the Ismaelis used the very phrase 'Nothing exists, everything is permitted.'" This is the way it operates within Zen. I'm sure there are many other examples. His description of Karma is clear on this point as well.
So these are the essentials. You're basically on your lonesome to accomplish this stuff. As for the rest, his critique of art, politics, the sexes...it's all on point, surprisingly so. Don't exalt your ego, find meaning in higher things, be dutiful...I dunno, it's all good stuff and inspiring.
August 4, 2014
A breath of fresh air and a very interesting for those who agree with Evola. The critiques of Sartre, Nietzsche and Heidegger are well-composed and would be of interest for general philosophy readers.
May 24, 2024
Bitter, but lucid. The metaphysics at stake here are somewhat dualistic, opposing the base world of nihilistic modernity to the aristocratic transcendence of tradition. It's easy to dismiss Evola as a racist (he was), sexist (he was) and for views further to the right than fascism (he called himself a superfacist), but his thought is not entirely trivial. Two points are worth highlighting: (1) the critique of existentialism and (2) the advocacy of impersonal detachment from sociability. Existentialism is condemned as a symptom of the "fractured will" of modern man, the logical consequence of an epoch that has cut off the vertical relation to the immutable world of Being. Evola suggests that since contemporary society is destined to collapse, severing all links from it is necessary. This requires the adoption of a persona, and a thoroughgoing crushing of any personal attachments. Together, these yield an ethos of withdrawal, preserving one's energy and willpower to strike at the moment when the decadent titular tiger has run out of steam.
In the final analysis, one sympathizes with Evola's defense of aristocracy in a world where pornography is confused with immanence. The trouble is that modern aristocrats are not those heroically fighting against degeneracy; today's aristocrats are those partisans of abstraction that have passed through the formal rigours of set, category and type theory. The choice is clear: do we consider the initiated to be those capable of contemplating death, or those capable of parsing nCatLab?
###
Politics are the least interesting bit here, the book is important even though the author has some rather scandalous opinions. I am rather insistent about ontologies of immanence. If one decides to include transcendence, one must reckon with Evola. His project in this book is an encyclopedic compendium of all the bits one can gather about transcendence while remaining detached, and one can say rather a lot. Subtract the politics, and you have a compact and useful guide to constructing a coherent orientation to life with the Sacred left somewhat under-defined. Perhaps some folks prefer to leave the Sacred safely vague; ultimately I go further down the rabbit hole since I'm not satisfied with a vague notion of transcendence, but it's not obvious that this decision is aligned with the interests of life.
Probably happier to bottom out here. True diehards will not be able to resist the siren call of radical negativity, and will follow thought all the way down to the cold reaches of abstraction where life and concept are totally divorced. Evola is a vitalist, but again I wouldn't necessarily disabuse a friend of that position; irrationally valuing life is a healthy reflex, certainly better than suicidal pessimism passing as deep existential reflection.
In the final analysis, one sympathizes with Evola's defense of aristocracy in a world where pornography is confused with immanence. The trouble is that modern aristocrats are not those heroically fighting against degeneracy; today's aristocrats are those partisans of abstraction that have passed through the formal rigours of set, category and type theory. The choice is clear: do we consider the initiated to be those capable of contemplating death, or those capable of parsing nCatLab?
###
Politics are the least interesting bit here, the book is important even though the author has some rather scandalous opinions. I am rather insistent about ontologies of immanence. If one decides to include transcendence, one must reckon with Evola. His project in this book is an encyclopedic compendium of all the bits one can gather about transcendence while remaining detached, and one can say rather a lot. Subtract the politics, and you have a compact and useful guide to constructing a coherent orientation to life with the Sacred left somewhat under-defined. Perhaps some folks prefer to leave the Sacred safely vague; ultimately I go further down the rabbit hole since I'm not satisfied with a vague notion of transcendence, but it's not obvious that this decision is aligned with the interests of life.
Probably happier to bottom out here. True diehards will not be able to resist the siren call of radical negativity, and will follow thought all the way down to the cold reaches of abstraction where life and concept are totally divorced. Evola is a vitalist, but again I wouldn't necessarily disabuse a friend of that position; irrationally valuing life is a healthy reflex, certainly better than suicidal pessimism passing as deep existential reflection.
January 15, 2020
29-08-19 Update: Changed review to five stars. This book has really stuck with me since reading it, and I've had a lot of time to reflect and re-read certain portions of it which I feel outweigh any negative aspects I pointed out in my initial review. I've thought about Evola's ideas on technology not actually making us better people (medicine notwithstanding): "he is no more powerful or superior using space missiles than he ever was when using a club, except in its material effects; apart from those he remains as he was, with his passions, his instincts, and his inadequacies." I've thought a lot about people - Western people, almost exclusively - going through the motions of life as though the supreme goal was to live a life without pain, without difficulty or adversity, without responsibility. I'm looking forward to reading 'Revolt Against the Modern World' and 'Men Among the Ruins' and then revisiting this more recently-published book for anything I may have missed on my initial read.
---
There is a lot of interesting stuff going on in this book, and it certainly covers a lot of ground. Most of it - such as Evola's perspectives on adversity and risk, personal values, politicians, drug abuse in disaffected youth, the deterioration of the world towards the Kali Yuga - I really enjoyed. It's a shame when, reading Evola, Nietzsche, Spengler, etc, we can see that they've taken great effort to accurately articulate the problems in modern life and even presented methods to reverse the downward spiral, but we've found decadence is far easier and so continue to become even paler shadows of the best version of ourselves.
His philosophizing about philosophers was a bit of a slog for me, and his views on modern science (too difficult to understand, disregard it!) and women's rights were unfortunate marks against an overall very good book. Though I did quite enjoy his take on women achieving (almost) parity with men: "In an inauthentic existence, the regime of diversions, surrogates, and tranquilizers that pass for today's 'distractions' and 'amusements' does not yet allow the modern woman to foresee the crisis that awaits her when she recognizes how meaningless are those male occupations for which she has fought."
---
There is a lot of interesting stuff going on in this book, and it certainly covers a lot of ground. Most of it - such as Evola's perspectives on adversity and risk, personal values, politicians, drug abuse in disaffected youth, the deterioration of the world towards the Kali Yuga - I really enjoyed. It's a shame when, reading Evola, Nietzsche, Spengler, etc, we can see that they've taken great effort to accurately articulate the problems in modern life and even presented methods to reverse the downward spiral, but we've found decadence is far easier and so continue to become even paler shadows of the best version of ourselves.
His philosophizing about philosophers was a bit of a slog for me, and his views on modern science (too difficult to understand, disregard it!) and women's rights were unfortunate marks against an overall very good book. Though I did quite enjoy his take on women achieving (almost) parity with men: "In an inauthentic existence, the regime of diversions, surrogates, and tranquilizers that pass for today's 'distractions' and 'amusements' does not yet allow the modern woman to foresee the crisis that awaits her when she recognizes how meaningless are those male occupations for which she has fought."
November 3, 2015
A feckless, fascist, pile of dreck.
June 8, 2020
all i could think when attempting to read this was “bro you need to chill”
December 18, 2020
Evola, like acid, burns through everything he touches. He knows pretty well how to destroy modern concepts (this is the good side), but has no idea what needs to be done, no alkali to oppose the acid. His orientations have the serious potential to lead 'evolians' either astray, or to a cul-de-sac.
If you're confortable with such readings, focus on the masterpiece that is "The Reign of Quantity" instead, written 16 years before Ride the Tiger, and notice the vast differences for yourself. Someone correctly described "Reign" as making "all other contemporary critiques seem half-hearted by comparison."
Titus Burckardt has an interesting review of Ride The Tiger in his "Mirror of Intellect" article collection. Also check Tim Winter's (Abdal Hakim Murad) commentary video "Riding the Tiger of Modernity".
If you're confortable with such readings, focus on the masterpiece that is "The Reign of Quantity" instead, written 16 years before Ride the Tiger, and notice the vast differences for yourself. Someone correctly described "Reign" as making "all other contemporary critiques seem half-hearted by comparison."
Titus Burckardt has an interesting review of Ride The Tiger in his "Mirror of Intellect" article collection. Also check Tim Winter's (Abdal Hakim Murad) commentary video "Riding the Tiger of Modernity".
February 11, 2013
Highly disapinting. The title, "A Survival Manual for Aristocrats of the Soul," is nothing more than a stupid misnomer. Nothing but reactionary drivel with Evola raging against Nietzche, Heidigger, and any other intellectual that didn't get his whole TRADITION schtick. Which is a real shame because, Revolt Against the Modern World is fucking great. Philosophy-tards might like it, anyone else more grounded in reality, like myself, should steer clear of this boringass work and just stick with Revolt.
June 30, 2020
At first I was bored by Evola's elaborate reflections on the necessity to turn to transcendence in one's existence, but the book got better and better as the author performed a great analysis of modern philosophy until it finally turned brilliant with his criticism of human culture and society. I may not agree with everything Evola wrote, but many of his thoughts concerning the state of modern civilisation are indeed striking and have to be taken into consideration.
August 7, 2019
THE Evola book to read. If you read only one volume of Evola, this is it. It holds his criticisms of the modern world and espouses individualism and personal responsibility while providing a commentary on the perils of modernity.
September 22, 2025
Julius Evola’s Ride the Tiger (Cavalcare la tigre, 1961) represents a late expression of his traditionalist philosophy and constitutes a sequel of sorts to his earlier Revolt Against the Modern World (1934). Whereas the earlier work constructed a metaphysical critique of modernity grounded in an idealized vision of Tradition, Ride the Tiger confronts the practical question of how individuals oriented toward transcendence should live amidst the cultural, spiritual, and political dissolution of the modern age. In this sense, the book shifts from metaphysical exposition to existential strategy, offering what Evola describes as a “handbook for the differentiated man.”
Evola’s central metaphor of “riding the tiger” conveys his prescription for endurance within a world that can no longer be redeemed by a return to traditional structures. The modern epoch, in his view, has entered an irreversible phase of decline—akin to the Hindu Kali Yuga—in which traditional institutions, values, and spiritual hierarchies have collapsed. Unlike conservative attempts to restore premodern order, Evola insists that the “differentiated” individual must instead accept the irreversibility of this process and learn to endure and transcend it by maintaining an inner distance from modern life while simultaneously engaging it with discipline and detachment.
The book is divided into several thematic sections. The opening chapters articulate the condition of the “differentiated man,” who recognizes the void of contemporary existence yet refuses both nihilistic despair and assimilation into mass society. Evola then explores specific domains of modern culture—politics, art, sexuality, philosophy, and religion—to analyze how the individual might navigate each sphere without succumbing to its degradations. His assessments are often harsh: modern politics is portrayed as irredeemably dominated by materialism and mass manipulation; modern art as a symptom of disintegration rather than creation; and modern philosophy as largely complicit in the abandonment of transcendence.
Perhaps most striking is Evola’s treatment of existentialism and nihilism. Rather than rejecting thinkers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger, Evola interprets them as unwitting guides for the differentiated individual. Nietzsche’s proclamation of the “death of God,” for example, is read not as a destructive end but as a challenge to reorient life toward the supra-individual and the transcendent. Evola advocates what he calls “active nihilism,” a deliberate confrontation with the void that can, if endured with discipline, serve as a passageway to higher realization. This stance separates him both from reactionary nostalgia and from modernist celebration, situating him in a peculiar intellectual space that combines radical critique with esoteric aspiration.
Stylistically, Ride the Tiger is less systematic than Revolt Against the Modern World, but it is more directly concerned with practical existence. The tone oscillates between philosophical reflection and prescriptive exhortation, with Evola presenting himself as a mentor to the rare individuals capable of following his path. His references are eclectic, ranging from Eastern spirituality and classical philosophy to modern literature and psychology. Yet, as in his earlier works, his interpretations are highly selective and often subordinated to his overarching metaphysical perspective.
From a scholarly perspective, Ride the Tiger is significant as a document of postwar traditionalist thought. Whereas Evola’s interwar writings engaged more directly with the political projects of fascism and authoritarianism, this later work reflects a recognition that such movements had failed to restore the sacred order he envisioned. Instead, he shifts his attention inward, toward the cultivation of a spiritual aristocracy capable of withstanding what he considered the inevitable decline of Western civilization. The work thereby represents an evolution from collective political engagement toward an ethos of individual resilience and transcendence.
The reception of the book has mirrored that of Evola’s corpus as a whole: admired by some as a profound guide for spiritual endurance in an age of dissolution, while dismissed by others as elitist, obscurantist, and politically dangerous. For scholars, its importance lies less in its practical advice than in its articulation of a uniquely modern form of antimodernism—an attempt to engage with modernity’s crises from the standpoint of metaphysical traditionalism. It provides insight into the intellectual strategies of the radical Right after the Second World War, when the dream of political restoration gave way to the cultivation of inner fortitude and esoteric resistance.
Ride the Tiger is both a continuation and a transformation of Evola’s earlier project. It stands as a testament to his lifelong endeavor to articulate a mode of existence that resists modernity while refusing mere nostalgia. For students of political thought, philosophy of religion, and the history of ideas, it remains an important—if deeply controversial—work, illuminating the intersection of traditionalist metaphysics, postwar disillusionment, and existential strategy.
GPT
Evola’s central metaphor of “riding the tiger” conveys his prescription for endurance within a world that can no longer be redeemed by a return to traditional structures. The modern epoch, in his view, has entered an irreversible phase of decline—akin to the Hindu Kali Yuga—in which traditional institutions, values, and spiritual hierarchies have collapsed. Unlike conservative attempts to restore premodern order, Evola insists that the “differentiated” individual must instead accept the irreversibility of this process and learn to endure and transcend it by maintaining an inner distance from modern life while simultaneously engaging it with discipline and detachment.
The book is divided into several thematic sections. The opening chapters articulate the condition of the “differentiated man,” who recognizes the void of contemporary existence yet refuses both nihilistic despair and assimilation into mass society. Evola then explores specific domains of modern culture—politics, art, sexuality, philosophy, and religion—to analyze how the individual might navigate each sphere without succumbing to its degradations. His assessments are often harsh: modern politics is portrayed as irredeemably dominated by materialism and mass manipulation; modern art as a symptom of disintegration rather than creation; and modern philosophy as largely complicit in the abandonment of transcendence.
Perhaps most striking is Evola’s treatment of existentialism and nihilism. Rather than rejecting thinkers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger, Evola interprets them as unwitting guides for the differentiated individual. Nietzsche’s proclamation of the “death of God,” for example, is read not as a destructive end but as a challenge to reorient life toward the supra-individual and the transcendent. Evola advocates what he calls “active nihilism,” a deliberate confrontation with the void that can, if endured with discipline, serve as a passageway to higher realization. This stance separates him both from reactionary nostalgia and from modernist celebration, situating him in a peculiar intellectual space that combines radical critique with esoteric aspiration.
Stylistically, Ride the Tiger is less systematic than Revolt Against the Modern World, but it is more directly concerned with practical existence. The tone oscillates between philosophical reflection and prescriptive exhortation, with Evola presenting himself as a mentor to the rare individuals capable of following his path. His references are eclectic, ranging from Eastern spirituality and classical philosophy to modern literature and psychology. Yet, as in his earlier works, his interpretations are highly selective and often subordinated to his overarching metaphysical perspective.
From a scholarly perspective, Ride the Tiger is significant as a document of postwar traditionalist thought. Whereas Evola’s interwar writings engaged more directly with the political projects of fascism and authoritarianism, this later work reflects a recognition that such movements had failed to restore the sacred order he envisioned. Instead, he shifts his attention inward, toward the cultivation of a spiritual aristocracy capable of withstanding what he considered the inevitable decline of Western civilization. The work thereby represents an evolution from collective political engagement toward an ethos of individual resilience and transcendence.
The reception of the book has mirrored that of Evola’s corpus as a whole: admired by some as a profound guide for spiritual endurance in an age of dissolution, while dismissed by others as elitist, obscurantist, and politically dangerous. For scholars, its importance lies less in its practical advice than in its articulation of a uniquely modern form of antimodernism—an attempt to engage with modernity’s crises from the standpoint of metaphysical traditionalism. It provides insight into the intellectual strategies of the radical Right after the Second World War, when the dream of political restoration gave way to the cultivation of inner fortitude and esoteric resistance.
Ride the Tiger is both a continuation and a transformation of Evola’s earlier project. It stands as a testament to his lifelong endeavor to articulate a mode of existence that resists modernity while refusing mere nostalgia. For students of political thought, philosophy of religion, and the history of ideas, it remains an important—if deeply controversial—work, illuminating the intersection of traditionalist metaphysics, postwar disillusionment, and existential strategy.
GPT
December 27, 2011
I'm at about 70%, and so far he mostly seems to be very busy pointing out how wrong other people are. I also feel he simplifies a lot of things and maybe doesn't understand them as well as he likes to imagine. While I found a lot of original and interesting ideas in this book so far, I do also feel...well. This entire book so far seems to be about how amazing he and people who are like him are and why. Though there are some interesting points he also loses a lot of credit by over simplifying all the rest. The chapter about music got on my nerves especially. Perhaps because this was a subject I am actually very familiar with. As a musician, I obviously couldn't appreciate what felt like an elephant barging into a porcelain cabinet. He just stamps about and glosses over and expects to understand. Well, no. That just won't work.
Nevertheless...I think I might finish this book, though it's been a drag so far. He might have something interesting to say after all, if he ever gets over bashing other people and pointing out why they are supposedly misguided, stupid, or both.
EDIT: Finished it after all. I have a feeling I might actually have learned something of it after all, though I'm not yet quite sure what exactly. I have a feeling Evola could have presented his ideas much better if..well, to put it bluntly, if he hadn't had such an obviously unpleasant personality ( never mind the fact that he doesn't believe in those, really. He has one. And it is annoying). There are definitely some very thought provoking chapters in there, but even the best parts were soured by sudden - in my opinion completely uncalled for, as they often didn't add much - attacks on the ideas of others. I just expected more from the book, I guess. More insight, maybe, more original ideas. I know he thought he was writing from "tradition", so maybe not entirely original but at least clearly worded and somewhat longer parts with his own views. This book is about 70% telling how wrong people are, 15% how great it is not to be like that and another 15% of actual information. I wonder if I should try one of his other works. Right now, I don't really have the patience to put up with the whining.
Nevertheless...I think I might finish this book, though it's been a drag so far. He might have something interesting to say after all, if he ever gets over bashing other people and pointing out why they are supposedly misguided, stupid, or both.
EDIT: Finished it after all. I have a feeling I might actually have learned something of it after all, though I'm not yet quite sure what exactly. I have a feeling Evola could have presented his ideas much better if..well, to put it bluntly, if he hadn't had such an obviously unpleasant personality ( never mind the fact that he doesn't believe in those, really. He has one. And it is annoying). There are definitely some very thought provoking chapters in there, but even the best parts were soured by sudden - in my opinion completely uncalled for, as they often didn't add much - attacks on the ideas of others. I just expected more from the book, I guess. More insight, maybe, more original ideas. I know he thought he was writing from "tradition", so maybe not entirely original but at least clearly worded and somewhat longer parts with his own views. This book is about 70% telling how wrong people are, 15% how great it is not to be like that and another 15% of actual information. I wonder if I should try one of his other works. Right now, I don't really have the patience to put up with the whining.
Read
August 22, 2021"In this context, there is another more recent phenomenon that is heavy with significance: that is the so-called global protest movement. It took its rise in part from the order of ideas already mentioned. In the wake of theories such as Marcuse's, it came to the conclusion that there is a basic similarity, in terms of technological consumer society, between the system of advanced communist countries and that of the capitalist world, because in the former, the original impulse of the proletarian revolution is much diminished. This impulse has now been realized, inasmuch as the working class has entered the consumer system, being assured of a lifestyle that is no longer proletarian but bourgeois: the very thing whose absence was the incentive for revolution. But alongside this convergence there has become visible the conditioning power of one and the same "system," manifesting as the tendency to destroy all the higher values of life and personality. At the level more or less corresponding to the "last man" foreseen by Nietzsche, the individual in contemporary consumer society reckons that it would be too expensive, indeed absurd, to do without the comfort and well-being that this evolved society offers him, merely for the sake of an abstract freedom. Thus he accepts with a good grace all the leveling conditionings of the system. This realization has caused a bypassing of revolutionary Marxism, now deprived of its original motive force, in favor of a "global protest" against the system. This movement, however, also lacks any higher principle: it is irrational, anarchic, and instinctive in character. For want of anything else, it calls on the abject minorities of outsiders, on the excluded and rejected, sometimes even on the Third World (in which case Marxist fantasies reappear) and on the blacks, as being the only revolutionary potential. But it stands under the sign of nothingness: it is a hysterical "revolution of the void and the 'underground,'" of "maddened wasps trapped in a glass jar, who throw themselves frenetically against the walls."
October 27, 2015
Non c'è niente di più proficuo di leggere un autore con vedute diametralmente opposte alle proprie.
Evola, esponente della destra tradizionalista, ma non di quella ignorante e populista (alla Salvini, per intenderci) ma di quella ancorata ai grandi Miti della Tradizione, è uno di quegli autori con cui amo confrontarmi.
Non condivido gran parte della sue idee e delle sue posizioni, ma è senza dubbio una lettura culturalmente appagante
Evola, esponente della destra tradizionalista, ma non di quella ignorante e populista (alla Salvini, per intenderci) ma di quella ancorata ai grandi Miti della Tradizione, è uno di quegli autori con cui amo confrontarmi.
Non condivido gran parte della sue idee e delle sue posizioni, ma è senza dubbio una lettura culturalmente appagante
December 9, 2025
Evola is a thinker that fascinates me constantly, but reading him in itself is quite daunting and sometimes frustrating. Not because he writes in an obscurantist way, but because he is sometimes so radical that I have to shift so much of the mental framework (or programming) I've acquired over the years just to understand him. Though at the end of this process I obtain entirely new ways of seeing things - that just shows how brilliant he can be.
Evola's contempt for bourgeois society and his reasoning for it is one such thing that allowed me to shift so many of the prior ideas that I assumed were settled by some form of personal ideology. Of course there is a place for the bourgeois in the proper order of things, but by reading him, I've started to sense the fitting hierarchy needed for the true order, ordained by nature. (Ironically, I also started to see some value in many of the leftist arguments I've laughed at over the years.) This in itself made me reconsider much of my understanding of the enlightened progressive view of history. Just by being able to observe the shift of power from the traditional owners of it, to the bourgeois, and seeing the resulting world from this process, is enough to reconsider everything I've known about history.
The same applies to science and materialism, out of which the former fascinates me endlessly, but Evola aptly demonstrates its limits. Science cannot explain or know things in and of itself and must always refer to other abstractions of its own creation. At one point it hits the wall of possible explanations of the behaviour of nature, and must accept nature as is - but instead of calling this magic, we call it law of nature. But this doesn't mean the explanatory power of science has no value or meaning - but it does mean that it must be placed in its right spot in the hierarchy of things. At the end of the day, it is all a form of useful abstraction. So putting science as the basis of our being, which is the dogma of materialism, is to mistake the map for the territory.
Not only that, the methodology and application of science in this sense are only valid and valuable in the narrow field of natural sciences. Any divergence from this narrow domain has only caused confusion, misery, falsehood and evil. The lesson of the last 300 years is that the principles of science only apply to a very narrow field of relevant phenomena, and it should only be left there. It should not leak out to metaphysics, politics, history, social "sciences" etc. These may not represent the views of Evola fully, as they are my attempt at some form of reconciliation.
Ultimately, any reading of history is inherently theory-laden; that's why it's not a science. Liberal history is the reading based on the triumph of democracy / meritocracy and reason, with the unstoppable force of progress always moving further. Evola asks you to stop and reconsider this. He doesn't expect this force to stop or even slow down yet - hence his ultimate proposal is to, Ride the Tiger.
Evola's contempt for bourgeois society and his reasoning for it is one such thing that allowed me to shift so many of the prior ideas that I assumed were settled by some form of personal ideology. Of course there is a place for the bourgeois in the proper order of things, but by reading him, I've started to sense the fitting hierarchy needed for the true order, ordained by nature. (Ironically, I also started to see some value in many of the leftist arguments I've laughed at over the years.) This in itself made me reconsider much of my understanding of the enlightened progressive view of history. Just by being able to observe the shift of power from the traditional owners of it, to the bourgeois, and seeing the resulting world from this process, is enough to reconsider everything I've known about history.
The same applies to science and materialism, out of which the former fascinates me endlessly, but Evola aptly demonstrates its limits. Science cannot explain or know things in and of itself and must always refer to other abstractions of its own creation. At one point it hits the wall of possible explanations of the behaviour of nature, and must accept nature as is - but instead of calling this magic, we call it law of nature. But this doesn't mean the explanatory power of science has no value or meaning - but it does mean that it must be placed in its right spot in the hierarchy of things. At the end of the day, it is all a form of useful abstraction. So putting science as the basis of our being, which is the dogma of materialism, is to mistake the map for the territory.
Not only that, the methodology and application of science in this sense are only valid and valuable in the narrow field of natural sciences. Any divergence from this narrow domain has only caused confusion, misery, falsehood and evil. The lesson of the last 300 years is that the principles of science only apply to a very narrow field of relevant phenomena, and it should only be left there. It should not leak out to metaphysics, politics, history, social "sciences" etc. These may not represent the views of Evola fully, as they are my attempt at some form of reconciliation.
Ultimately, any reading of history is inherently theory-laden; that's why it's not a science. Liberal history is the reading based on the triumph of democracy / meritocracy and reason, with the unstoppable force of progress always moving further. Evola asks you to stop and reconsider this. He doesn't expect this force to stop or even slow down yet - hence his ultimate proposal is to, Ride the Tiger.
December 6, 2019
Ride the Tiger is a fascinating book. It is not an easy read by any means but it is a useful and important book. The first 3 sections of the book can become slightly tedious as they are a very dense, heady deconstruction of Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzsche. However section four is where Evola jumps in to the more ‘real world’ application of the attributes of what he calls the “differentiated man.” While I did not find myself agreeing with Evola on a number of things I still find Ride the Tiger to be one of the most vital philosophical works produced in the 20th century.
October 23, 2017
A meandering diatribe of empty statements and meaningless phrases. At the end of every paragraph you expect that the next will contain some kind of nugget of wisdom, but it never comes. More ellipses, more commas and the voluminous prose of someone who is sorely missing an editor.
March 6, 2024
DNF: Getting over the pride of not finishing a book. Close to the halfway mark and it’s just not worth my time to continue reading. When I was younger I used to regard Evola in a high manner but now that I’m better read and have a greater knowledge of philosophy I find him to be arbitrary and not a serious thinker. If you guys follow me on instagram you can read more of my thoughts on his philosophy. His best arguments can be found better articulated in different thinkers and writers.
Edit:
It would be unfair if I wrote a bad review and did not explain myself. Evola’s thesis is just a lame version of the will to power. The spiritual aristocrat is supposed to align his inner being with the Being of the world of Tradition. What does Evola mean by the world of Tradition? He says to use the definition that Rene Guenon and the perennial school put forth. He then departs from the perennial definition of Tradition and chooses what faiths are traditional and what aren’t (Christianity isn’t apart of the world of Tradition but Islam is). He rightly critiques Nietzsche that his will to power goes nowhere because it is missing the transcendent dimension. But the transcendent dimension Evola argues for is not found in the perennial school. Perennialists argued for communion with the hidden God through the practice of exoteric genuine spirituality. Evola argues for the creation of your own law that’s attached to Being and Tradition. What Being? What tradition? The one you made up! He basically argues the same thing as subjectivists do when they say “just be yourself,” but he does extra mental gymnastics. How do you know your being is aligned with the world of Tradition if you are supposed to reject exoteric faith? It is all the assumption that you are Evola’s special little Brahmin spiritual aristocrat.
Edit:
It would be unfair if I wrote a bad review and did not explain myself. Evola’s thesis is just a lame version of the will to power. The spiritual aristocrat is supposed to align his inner being with the Being of the world of Tradition. What does Evola mean by the world of Tradition? He says to use the definition that Rene Guenon and the perennial school put forth. He then departs from the perennial definition of Tradition and chooses what faiths are traditional and what aren’t (Christianity isn’t apart of the world of Tradition but Islam is). He rightly critiques Nietzsche that his will to power goes nowhere because it is missing the transcendent dimension. But the transcendent dimension Evola argues for is not found in the perennial school. Perennialists argued for communion with the hidden God through the practice of exoteric genuine spirituality. Evola argues for the creation of your own law that’s attached to Being and Tradition. What Being? What tradition? The one you made up! He basically argues the same thing as subjectivists do when they say “just be yourself,” but he does extra mental gymnastics. How do you know your being is aligned with the world of Tradition if you are supposed to reject exoteric faith? It is all the assumption that you are Evola’s special little Brahmin spiritual aristocrat.
June 28, 2022
The thesis itself was very sound, Evola's take on the dissolution of society being as lucid as ever. In my opinion, many of his complaints regarding society-at-large being rather premature for his time, writing in the early 60's I found it amusing that almost all of Evola's criticisms at the time were discussing sociological issues that weren't even in full bloom yet; the Hippie movement hadn't even begun by this time, Evola seems to have found the seed of that period of decadence before it even started.
Another prophetic aspect of this book I found interesting was his vision of the future of technology, which served as a proto-Kaczynskian warning for the future that went unheeded into current day. I would say he even predicted the rise of social media and its dangers decades before personal computers found their way into the homes of the masses.
However, I was disappointed to find that he never really gave much solution to the "differentiated man" in this current age of dissolution, he spent more time identifying the Tiger than he did in suggesting ways on how to "ride" it. The problem may be that he wrote this book too early in time at a late stage in his life, so his disconnect with the youth and the true direction of the future was evident. I think he provided enough material for the reader to use as a starting point, if they so choose.
A lot of material in 'Ride the Tiger' is rehashed and restated from his earlier books, especially "Revolution Against the Modern World", the latter being far superior in many ways. His chapters regarding existentialism and philosophy were pretty difficult to sit through, much of it seemed outdated to modern readers (admittedly I have zero background or interest in this topic). I would only recommend this book to those who have taken interest in Evola's previous material and wouldn't suggest this to newcomers of his works.
Another prophetic aspect of this book I found interesting was his vision of the future of technology, which served as a proto-Kaczynskian warning for the future that went unheeded into current day. I would say he even predicted the rise of social media and its dangers decades before personal computers found their way into the homes of the masses.
However, I was disappointed to find that he never really gave much solution to the "differentiated man" in this current age of dissolution, he spent more time identifying the Tiger than he did in suggesting ways on how to "ride" it. The problem may be that he wrote this book too early in time at a late stage in his life, so his disconnect with the youth and the true direction of the future was evident. I think he provided enough material for the reader to use as a starting point, if they so choose.
A lot of material in 'Ride the Tiger' is rehashed and restated from his earlier books, especially "Revolution Against the Modern World", the latter being far superior in many ways. His chapters regarding existentialism and philosophy were pretty difficult to sit through, much of it seemed outdated to modern readers (admittedly I have zero background or interest in this topic). I would only recommend this book to those who have taken interest in Evola's previous material and wouldn't suggest this to newcomers of his works.
September 2, 2020
I think a lot of the analyses and criticisms of the dead end that western civilisation in its materialist form is heading to, are well described and prognosticated in this book. From the collapse of family values to social relations, sexual relations and a general climate of moral nihilism, the pattern is the same. For those who like some of Schopenhauer's or Nietzsche's harsh critiques of various things in Western society or the critiques in the Frankfurt school, such as in Adorno's Minima Moralia, this is a good book in that tradition updated to more recent times. The downside, and why I could not give it five stars despite so many accurate, scathing critiques of our lost materialist society, is that he is very unclear about the alternative. He seems to hedge his bets a lot and not say much committal in this area, for fear of being criticised in the same way that he has criticised others. He is concerned to avoid seeming like new age spirituality in any way, seeing this movement as perhaps accelerating the demise of Western society if anything. With its reliance on generic advice addressed to noone in particular, that does not appreciate context. And this may be correct, however he offers little positive himself besides some vague notion of somehow staying in touch with tradition and trying to be in touch with a higher dimension to existence, above this material plane. If the author was more willing to give other authors some credit, he could perhaps see cross overs between his ideas and some others, without merely belittling them and leaving little room for a positive and constructive message for people to take heed of and act upon.
December 30, 2020
Barely comprehensible, requires deep knowledge of philosophy that I do not (yet?) possess. Lots of meaningless, empty phrases.
Strongly disagree with Evola that science does not produce true knowledge because it is merely concerned with manipulating and predicting reality. He uses this, admittedly pretty good, metaphor:
"The system of science resembles a net that draws ever tighter around something that, in itself, remains incomprehensible, with the sole intention of subduing it for practical ends."
At least the truth that science produces is *useful* unlike the author's philosophizing which I suspect might be a complicated, abstract construct made from bullshit. At least science approaches something true.
Strongly disagree with Evola that science does not produce true knowledge because it is merely concerned with manipulating and predicting reality. He uses this, admittedly pretty good, metaphor:
"The system of science resembles a net that draws ever tighter around something that, in itself, remains incomprehensible, with the sole intention of subduing it for practical ends."
At least the truth that science produces is *useful* unlike the author's philosophizing which I suspect might be a complicated, abstract construct made from bullshit. At least science approaches something true.
October 25, 2015
If you are like me you have long since seen the disturbing parallels between the far right and the new age/hippie movement. If you want to see an actual work of writing which originally brought these things together as a whole in the first place here you go. You even get that oh-so-wonderful postmodernist word salad style of non-writing as part of the presentation.
So cross L Ron Hubbard, Derrida, and David Duke and that's basically what you get here. Whole Foods with soundtrack by Von Thornstahl. I guess we all need to purge our degenerate gluten-toxins sometimes.
So cross L Ron Hubbard, Derrida, and David Duke and that's basically what you get here. Whole Foods with soundtrack by Von Thornstahl. I guess we all need to purge our degenerate gluten-toxins sometimes.
January 22, 2025
It is not terrible but I wouldn't recommend this book, there are some good insights and it is better than any secular philosophy, pagans are better than seculars and are more intelligent in life decisions in many points than pure seculars.
People like Asha Logos, Bronze Age Pevert and Marcus Follin would keep this as a sacred writing.
I read it years ago and wouldn't want to read anything from Evola again for many more years. He was after all, a magician who desired a return of paganism and idol idolatry.
People like Asha Logos, Bronze Age Pevert and Marcus Follin would keep this as a sacred writing.
I read it years ago and wouldn't want to read anything from Evola again for many more years. He was after all, a magician who desired a return of paganism and idol idolatry.
September 11, 2022
Buen diagnosticador de los problemas de la modernidad. Mal consejero de soluciones, pues en Oriente no está la respuesta y en los gnosticismos tampoco. Aunque hay que admitir que la idea de “Cabalgar el tigre” es interesante desde un punto de vista estratégico.
August 2, 2023
I was going to open this review by saying that "I don't know why I do it to myself," after having to slog through this one. Thing is though, I do know why I do it.
I do it because every time I read Evola I find that he is about two sentences away from saying something cool, but never really does. Also it's not like his thoughts just end, they keep spewing until chapters complete and he changes targets.
I think I understand Riding the Tiger,
I did. I got the better of The Tiger. I wrapped its ears around my hands and held on while it tried to buck me off. I read 250 pages of "rambles" about everything from invulnerability to the importance of death -- and no, they aren't uhh.. they uh...
He spent about 100 pages trying to meta analyze and debunk Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre. If I wanted to read so much of their content, I would have done so directly.
One interesting thing I noticed about myself while reading this book is how receptive I am and how frequently I say 'that is so true' to authors' criticism of science, but I never extend the same feeling to them when they criticize art, namely genres of music, which I find to be cringe.
Maybe Riding The Tiger is being a The Scientist. What do I know.
Two stars.
I do it because every time I read Evola I find that he is about two sentences away from saying something cool, but never really does. Also it's not like his thoughts just end, they keep spewing until chapters complete and he changes targets.
I think I understand Riding the Tiger,
"... the idea that if one succeeds in riding a tiger, not only does one avoid having it leap on one, but if one can keep one's seat and not fall off, one may eventually get the better of it."It means to finish reading this book.
I did. I got the better of The Tiger. I wrapped its ears around my hands and held on while it tried to buck me off. I read 250 pages of "rambles" about everything from invulnerability to the importance of death -- and no, they aren't uhh.. they uh...
He spent about 100 pages trying to meta analyze and debunk Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre. If I wanted to read so much of their content, I would have done so directly.
One interesting thing I noticed about myself while reading this book is how receptive I am and how frequently I say 'that is so true' to authors' criticism of science, but I never extend the same feeling to them when they criticize art, namely genres of music, which I find to be cringe.
Maybe Riding The Tiger is being a The Scientist. What do I know.
Two stars.
January 27, 2021
I thought Julius Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World (1934) was a huge disappointment and utterly irrelevant. But some say that it was simply overtaken by events and that Evola himself conceded this and updated his philosophy to have more relevance in Ride the Tiger (1961).
So, I decided to give him one more try. Ride the Tiger showed some flashes of promise in the second chapter and I got roped in (again). Alas, the truest words in the book are:
Elsewhere in the book, Evola deplores philosophers who "use an arbitrary terminology that they have specially invented, and which, especially in Heidegger, is of an inconceivable abstruseness, both superfluous and intolerable". This displays a staggering lack of self-awareness from someone who casually and regularly tosses around terms like "a political theology of high Ghibellinism". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
The best parts of the book turn out to be Evola quoting others, like Nietzsche or even Lukács: "In recent times art has become a luxury item for idle parasites; artistic activity, in its turn, has become a separate profession with the task of satisfying those luxury needs."
Evola himself is an anachronism who hasn’t had any meaningful relevance for decades, if ever. Even traditionalists and conservatives, his intended audience, would be well advised to look elsewhere. These are basically the esoteric ravings of a monarchist lunatic. 1.5 stars, rounded up to two stars only to distinguish it from the execrable Revolt Against the Modern World.
So, I decided to give him one more try. Ride the Tiger showed some flashes of promise in the second chapter and I got roped in (again). Alas, the truest words in the book are:
"The common reader probably finds these ideas tedious, and lacking in personal points of reference to give him bearings."You nailed it, Julius! Mic drop! Oh, and thanks for the gratuitous insult to the readers in the same sentence.
Elsewhere in the book, Evola deplores philosophers who "use an arbitrary terminology that they have specially invented, and which, especially in Heidegger, is of an inconceivable abstruseness, both superfluous and intolerable". This displays a staggering lack of self-awareness from someone who casually and regularly tosses around terms like "a political theology of high Ghibellinism". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
The best parts of the book turn out to be Evola quoting others, like Nietzsche or even Lukács: "In recent times art has become a luxury item for idle parasites; artistic activity, in its turn, has become a separate profession with the task of satisfying those luxury needs."
Evola himself is an anachronism who hasn’t had any meaningful relevance for decades, if ever. Even traditionalists and conservatives, his intended audience, would be well advised to look elsewhere. These are basically the esoteric ravings of a monarchist lunatic. 1.5 stars, rounded up to two stars only to distinguish it from the execrable Revolt Against the Modern World.
December 1, 2021
Mi rimane difficile redigere una revisione di un libro di Evola, così famoso e dal quale poi sono partiti molti altri filosofi tradizionalisti dopo di lui. Pur partendo dal fatto che sono d'accordo con la sua tesi dell'uomo moderno completamente in balia di se stesso e degli avvenimenti che lo circondano, solo senza più contatto con il divino, perdendo in tal modo una qualità intrinseca di essere umano del passato che è la ricerca delle tracce che ci legano ancora al mondo metafisico. Da qui tutte le azioni umane perdono consistenza e valore agli occhi del Tradizionalista. La società di oggi consumista e materialista ha allontanato l'uomo dai veri valori. L'arte, la letteratura, il rapporto tra i sessi, tutto è permeato da principi di decadenza e di nichilismo, che non potranno mai far evolvere l'uomo dal punto di vista spirituale, nè tanto meno gli da la possibilità di sviluppare in pieno le sue doti. Ripeto che condivido la sua critica, ma le cose sono anche più difficili da spiegare. Esiste una necessità storica che ha portato ai nostri tempi tali e quali come lo sono ora, e che affonda le sue radici in un passato lontano. L'antropocentrismo del Rinascimento ad esempio (che lui stesso cita), ma poteva essere diversamente dopo mille anni di oscurantismo cristiano? Ci sono delle energie che a lungo intrappolate esplodono e portano a controbilanciamento, rispetto al passato.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews