Deconstructing postmodernity

Some important aspects of postmodernity should be clarified. It is not a complete phenomenon, and although it was the postmodernists (in particular Derrida [1]) who introduced the notion of 'deconstruction' (based, however, on Heidegger's notion of die Destruktion in Sein und Zeit [2]), Postmodernity itself can be deconstructed, and not necessarily in the postmodern style.

Postmodernity takes shape on the basis of Modernity. In doing so, it partly criticises Modernity and partly continues it. With the development of this trend, what exactly and how it criticises the Modern, and what exactly and how it continues it, has itself become a kind of philosophical dogma, the attack on which is deliberately forbidden. This is what makes Postmodernism such, that it is neither bad nor good, but is as it is. Otherwise, the phenomenon would definitely dissolve. Yet this is not the case, and for all the irony, evasiveness and insincerity of postmodern discourse, there is a very definite core of fundamentals that it never abandons and clearly delineated boundaries beyond which it never goes. If we position ourselves at a critically significant distance from this core, and freely cross certain forbidden boundaries, we can look at postmodernism from afar and ask the question: is it not possible to take away from postmodernism certain lines that it has borrowed from somewhere and recombine them in a different way than it does itself? And again, is it not possible to ignore certain boundaries and moral imperatives it has established and dismember Postmodernity into its constituent parts, completely ignoring its inevitable protests and cries of theoretical pain?

Dismantling the modern: why can we love postmodernism?

I offer the most general considerations on this issue. Let us structure our analysis as follows: first, we will identify those lines of Postmodernism that are interesting from the point of view of a radical critique of Modernity isolated from postmodern morality, and then we will list those features that, on the contrary, are so imbued with this morality as to be inseparable from it.

Thus, what attracts the radical critic of Western European Modernity to Postmodernism is:

1. Phenomenology and working with the notion of intentionality (Brentano, Husserl, Meinong, Ehrenfels, Fink).

2. Structuralism and the identification of an autonomous ontology of language, text, discourse (Sossure, Trubetskoij, Jakobson, Propp, Greimas, Riker, Dumézil).

3. Cultural pluralism and interest in archaic societies (Boas, Moss, Lévi-Strauss).

4. The discovery of the sacred as the most important factor in existentialism (Durkheim, Eliade, Bataille, Caillois, Gerard, Blanchot).

5. Existentialism and the philosophy of Dasein (Heidegger and his epigones).

6. Acceptance of psychoanalytic themes as a continuous 'dream-work' that subverts the mechanisms of rationality (Freud, Jung, Lacan).

7. Deconstruction as contextualisation (Heidegger).

8. Attention to narration as myth (Bachelard, J. Durand).

9. Critique of racism, ethnocentrism and Western supremacism (Gramsci, Boas - Personality and Culture, New Anthropology).

10. Critique of the scientific image of the world (Newton) and the rationality that justifies it (mainly Cartesian-Lockian) (Foucault, Feyerabend, Latour).

11. Demonstration of the fragility, arbitrariness and falsity of the basic attitudes of Modernity (Cioran, Blaga, Latour).

12. Pessimism towards Western European civilisation, unmasking the utopian mythologies of the 'bright future' and 'progress' (Spengler, Jungers, Choran).

13. Sociology - primarily functionalism (Durkheim, Moss), which shows the illusory nature of the individual's claims to freedom from society and rational-psychological sovereignty.

14. Exposition of the nihilism of the New Age (Nietzsche, Heidegger).

15. Relativeisation of man (Nietzsche, Jünger).

16. The Discovery of Man's Interiority (Mounier, Corbin, Bataille, Jambe).

17. Political theology (Schmitt, Agamben).

Postmodern progressivism and censorship

It is worth noting at once that these fundamental trends took shape before Postmodernism and existed independently of it.

All of them brought something essential to Postmodernity and, from a certain point, began to unfold in its context until they partially merged with it, but it is obvious that each of these approaches, their intersections and meeting points, their possible and real dialogues and discussions, are entirely real and possible even outside the Postmodern context. Having stated this, we are bound to encounter protests from the postmodernists themselves. For them, any non-postmodern interpretation of these currents is deliberately removed from Postmodernity itself, and outside its context is only admissible as archaeological research.

Postmodernists rigidly insist: these disciplines, schools and movements have become objects embedded in the postmodern subject, which has seized complete power of interpretation. In other words, all these currents of thought are considered outdated, surmountable, 'removed' in the Hegelian sense, and are not entitled to sovereign interpretation. They can only continue in Postmodernism and according to its rules. In themselves, all these tendencies are not only outdated, but also toxic, if taken out of the postmodern context.

However, all these trends emerged at or around the turn of the 20th century and represent a systemic turning point in the history of Modernity itself. In them, Modernity is confronted head-on with its fundamental crisis, its failure and its inevitable end. What is important, however, is that this confrontation occurs even before Postmodernity acquires its explicit characteristic features. All these tendencies enter Postmodernity, founding its intellectual climate, shaping its language and conceptual systems, but in Modernity itself they are present in a different context, guarded by the 'orthodoxies of thought', precisely those on whose critique Postmodernity itself bases its liberating pathos. Just as Modernity replaced traditional (Premodern) society on the wave of anti-dogmatism, but soon formulated its own dogmatism; just as Communist regimes, which seized power under the slogan of combating violence and oppression, gave birth to brutal totalitarian systems based on violence and oppression many times over, so too Postmodernity rather quickly acquired an exclusivist and tyrannical character. The paradox is that Postmodernity elevates relativism to a universal value, but then defends this 'conquest' with the most brutal and globalist-absolutist methods. Transgression is transformed from a possibility into an imperative, and an increased focus on pathology becomes the new norm. Henceforth, everything that preceded the formation of this system is subjected to strict exclusion. 

If we look carefully at the list above, we can see that in part these movements and philosophical schools think of themselves in the context of the Modern, but as movements of thought that have discovered the inadequacy or defect of the Modern, and in part (though much less frequently) propose more radical conclusions that the Modern as a whole is an obscure, perverse, nihilistic and erroneous phenomenon.

What is to be radically rejected in Postmodernism?

Let us now highlight the characteristics of Postmodernism that are probably responsible for this totalitarian renaissance.

1. Progressivism. This time, however, it is paradoxical, since 'progress' is now seen as the dismantling of faith in a 'bright future', the overthrow of utopia and the project. We can call it 'black progressivism' or 'dark enlightenment' (N. Land [3]).

2. Materialism. This is not simply an uncritical inheritance from Modernity, but a superior attitude, since earlier forms of materialism are recognised as too 'idealistic'. Now 'real materialism' must be justified. (Deleuze [4], Kristeva [5]).

3. Relativism. All universalism is criticised, i.e. the reduction to unifying higher instances of the surrounding multitude, which is projected onto all forms of vertical hierarchies and taxonomies. Relativism itself is elevated to unquestionable dogma (Lyotard [6], Negri and Hard [7]).

4. Post-structuralism. Recognition of the structuralist method as insufficient because it does not cover historical and social dynamics and prohibits (or consciously preaches) mutations. Hence the call to overcome structuralism. (Foucault, Deleuze, Barthes).

5. Radical criticism of Tradition. Tradition is regarded (in the spirit of Marxism - especially by Hobsbawm [8]) as a "bourgeois fiction", "opium of the people". In this way, any hint of a sovereign ontology of the spirit is completely eliminated. Modernity itself is seen as a 'resurgence of Tradition', and this observation has the status of a verdict.

6. A new critical and sceptical universalism. The obligation to subject all generalisations to ridicule and ironic decomposition, in parallel with the shift of attention to heterogeneous fragments, ontic fractals.

7. The morality of total liberation and the overcoming of all boundaries. Transgression. (Foucault [9], Deleuze, Guattari, Bataille [10])

8. Anti-essentialism. From Heidegger's analysis of Dasein, a hasty and perverse conclusion is drawn about the viciousness of the very concept of 'essence', and being is so placed in becoming (even in bodily becoming) that the question of essence, let alone species, is rejected at the root.

9. The annulment of identity. All identity appears temporary, playful, accidental and arbitrary. Only the overcoming of identity, not its construction, becomes moral.

10. Gender theory (gender). The discovery of autonomous ontologies of oppressed minorities and classes becomes a total compulsion to relativise gender as well as age, within the limits of any species identity. (Kristeva [11], Harroway [12])

11. The construction of postmodern models of psychoanalysis with the attempt to overcome the structural themes of Freud and even Lacan (Guattari [13]).

12. Fierce hatred for all hierarchy and verticality (against the metaphor of the tree). Radical democratism up to the apologia of schizo-masses and dividends, dismembered into sovereign and separate constituent organisms, the 'parliament of organs' (Latour [14]).

13. Nihilism. Here the affirmation of modern nihilism is transformed into a conscious valorisation of nothingness, into a "will to nothingness" (Deleuze [15]). Nothingness ceases to be a pejorative concept and is assumed as a goal.

14.  The annulment of the event. The transition to recycling (Baudrillard [16]).

15. Post-humanism. The exhaustion of the human beginning as the bearer of a too traditional verticality (B. Levy [17]). The invitation to transcend the human into hybrids, 'desire machines', cyborgs and chimeras. Deep ecology and Cthulhu theories (Harroway [18]).

16. Apology of minorities. Equalisation between archaic organic cultures and artificial mechanical subcultures. Artificial organisation of networked communities of perverts and the mentally ill.

Postmodernity as the nihilistic finalisation of modernity

If we look closely at these points, we can clearly see that Postmodernity is not just a continuity with Modernity, but a taking of modern morality to its logical limit. In this list of postmodern traits, we see - already unequivocally (unlike the first list) - a critique of Modernity from the left, i.e. sadness that Modernity as we know it was not able to bring its attitudes to their fullest realisation, and that Postmodernity is now ready to take on this difficult task. In this case, Postmodernity reveals itself as the finalisation of Modernity, the attainment of its telos. If, however, Modernity carried out its work of emancipation under the conditions of traditional society (Premodernity), now the starting conditions are Modernity itself, which this time must be overcome. Hence the totalitarian and Bolshevik character of postmodern epistemologies, which fully embrace the theory of revolutionary terror. Modernity must be eradicated precisely because it is not modern enough, because it has failed in its mission. The entire structure completely reproduces the logic of Marxism: the bourgeoisie is a progressive class compared to feudalism, but the proletariat is even more progressive and must overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie. Along the same lines is postmodernism: modern is better than (pre-modern) tradition, but postmodernism is as inevitable as its overcoming. Overcoming from the left.

Implicit critical theory

Let us now examine the lines we have noted as interesting. If we separate them from Postmodernity, and especially from those sides that we have recognised as unacceptable, we obtain a whole series of theories, schools and approaches that form a certain wholeness, and this wholeness only becomes visible after subjecting Postmodernity itself to deconstruction and separation. The fact that all these tendencies developed independently of Postmodernism, before it and outside of it, allows us to conclude that we are dealing with a completely different and autonomous set of ideas. All of them are based on the recognition of the fundamental and decisive crisis of modern Western civilisation (René Guénon's The Crisis of the Modern World [19]), seek to identify the point in history where the fatal errors that led to the current state of affairs were committed, identify the main tendencies towards nihilism and degeneration, and propose their own scenarios for getting out of this situation - some more, some less radical: from course correction taking into account the newly discovered epistemological dimensions to direct rebellion against the modern world or conservative revolution. The fixation on the nihilism of Western European Modernity, and in particular on the purely negative phases revealed in the 20th century, relates these lines to Postmodernity and allows them to fit into its context to a certain extent. But if we take a closer look at this set of theories and currents, we see that they can be harmonised with each other - albeit relatively - on the basis of a completely different semantic vector. They propose to liberate Modernity above all from that side of it which, on the contrary, has become dominant in Postmodernity.

In other words, we are faced with a bifurcation point in the intellectual culture of the 20th century, where the general critical attitude towards modern Western civilisation, its philosophy, science, politics, culture, etc., has split into two main lines - Postmodernity itself, which has become the benchmark of Western culture.

- Postmodernism itself, which has become the explicit and inclusive possessor of an interpretative and value core, claiming uniqueness,

- and the second phenomenon, which has not been given a name of its own, having been supplanted, dismembered and modified by Postmodernism itself.

The absence of a name for this direction, as well as the failure to consolidate its representatives, the acceptance of most schools and currents with an isolated existence in the conditions of the nascent Postmodernity, and the concentration on the study of local sectorial problems and issues, does not allow us to speak of this branch of critical thought in the 20th century West as something integral.

The only attempt to unite these disparate strands was made by the French New Right. In part they succeeded, but in part this same movement of thought was labelled with a series of unprincipled positions and artificially marginalised. Thus, there was simply no name, structure or institutionalisation for a postmodern or non-postmodern alternative.

However, this is not a decisive reason to accept this branch of critical thought as something spectral and to accept the hegemonic claims of Postmodernism. We can consider the set of these intellectual vectors as an implicit but fairly coherent worldview. This is easy to do if we take the point of view of an alternative history in the realm of ideas. It is well known that in history the winning side - in wars, religious disputes, apolitical trials, elections, revolutions, coups d'état, scientific and philosophical controversies and other forms of physical and spiritual agonies - does not necessarily turn out to be right, good and on the side of truth. Everything happens in different ways. And this can be applied to the Postmodern and its alternative, the alt-Post-Modern.

Phenomenology

Let us review the directions we have identified as attractive from this perspective.

Phenomenology is important above all because it affirms the fundamental status of the subject, its ontological priority and sovereignty. It breaks with the materialist axiomatics of modernity, placing the subject of the intentional act within the very process of thought and perception. Hence the very term in-tentio, to head towards what is within. Brentano, the founder of phenomenology [20], drew this idea from European scholasticism and the radical Aristotelianism of the Benedictine order (Friedrich von Freiberg and the Rhenish mystics), which insists on the immanence of the active intellect to the human soul, and it is characteristic that Brentano himself devoted his dissertation precisely to the problem of the active intellect in Aristotle [21], and although phenomenology, developed by Husserl and taken to its pinnacle by Heidegger, is a modern philosophical movement, if one looks closely one can recognise in it a style of thinking that predates the nominalism, materialism and atomism of modernity. Phenomenology transcends the boundaries of modernity, but at the same time some of its dispositions are very consonant with classical and medieval thought.

Structuralism

Structuralism is extremely interesting in that it re-establishes the priority of discourse (the subjective dimension again!) over the entire field of extralinguistic subjects. While this position, which completely demolishes the approach of positivists convinced of the primacy of real things and the corresponding atomic facts, is new in the field of linguistics as well as in that of logic and philology, one can recognise in it that attitude towards the Logos, towards an ontology of mind and speech, which was characteristic of traditional society. Although the conclusion about the sovereign ontology of the text seems extravagant and even grotesque - in the context of the dominance of positivism, both conscious and unconscious -, this is precisely how language and thought were treated in the era before the total assault of the nominalist approach. After all, the dispute over universals was essentially a polemic between those who affirmed an autonomous ontology of names (realists and idealists) and those who denied it (nominalists).

Structuralism, then, approaches realism and idealism quite well, even if it deploys its doctrine in a different philosophical and cultural context.

Once again, a certain trait, constantly associated with postmodern methodologies, turns out to be close to pre-modern ones.

If one considers the connections of the leading structuralists, the founders of phonology, Trubeckoij and Jakobson with the Eurasian current, the proximity to traditionalism of the main theme of Dumézil's works on the trifunctional ideology of the Indo-Europeans [22], the parallels of Propp's [23] and Greimas' [24] studies with the structures of the sacred worldview, this kinship appears even more substantial and evident.

Rehabilitation of archaic societies

An in-depth and impartial study of archaic societies built on myths and beliefs, refuting the superficial, hasty and false conclusions of progressive and evolutionist anthropology, allows for a completely different view of the essence of culture, which (as Boas [25] and his school insisted above all) must be understood from within itself, without questioning the semantics and ontology of each society under study.

This leads to the recognition of the plurality of cultures and a minimum set of properties that can be considered universal. The exchange structures, which relate precisely to the universals of each society, each have a distinctive form that defines the ontological and epistemological landscape.

Sacredness

The discovery of the sacred as a special phenomenon has occurred synchronously in sociology, religious studies and traditionalist philosophy. While traditionalists have taken up the position of the sacred directly, recognising its loss in modern civilisation as a sign of degradation, sociologists have limited themselves to describing it in detail, while comparative religion - as well as some currents of psychoanalysis, especially the Jungian school [26] - have shown how elements of sacredness in the world remain stable even in those cultures that are based on rational-materialist principles.

Postmodernity actively uses the theme of the sacred, but only to devastatingly criticise modernity, which has failed in practice to truly embody its principles. Instead of cracking the world (Weber [27]), it has only produced a new set of myths. Postmodernity does not rehabilitate myth; on the contrary, it wants to eliminate it, but more radically and decisively than the Enlightenment did; but such an intention was not present among sociologists, nor among researchers of comparative religious studies, nor among pragmatists (W. James [28]), let alone traditionalists. Therefore, we can easily identify the vast area of the study of the sacred as an independent field, completely ignoring the postmodernist approach and corresponding strategies.

Dasein-philosophy

Proving that Heidegger's philosophy is a vast and autonomous field of ideas makes no sense. It is equally obvious that Heidegger's own intentions towards the New Beginning of philosophy have nothing to do with the basic attitudes of Postmodernity. Heidegger's echoes reached Postmodernity through his interpretation - already quite selective and distorted

- in the French school of existentialists (Sartre, Camus, etc.), and in the postmodern context they were transformed beyond recognition.

If one wishes, one can detect in Deleuze's fundamental concept of the rhizome [29] a distant echo of Heidegger's Dasein, but here it is more of a crude materialist parody than a real continuity.

Psychoanalysis

The field of psychoanalysis is obviously broader than Postmodernism as Heidegger's philosophy. That said, the most valuable thing about psychoanalysis is its assertion of an autonomous ontology of the psyche, a realm of the unconscious in relation to the external world, which derives its semantics and status not so much from the structures of subjective rationality as from the complex mechanisms of the invisible workings of dreams. At the same time, psychoanalysis must not be reduced to a single system of interpretation - in the spirit of orthodox Freudianism, Jungianism or Lacan's model. The anti-Edipus of Deleuze and Guattari [30] and feminist psychoanalysis are rather marginal phenomena that in no way - contrary to the rather totalitarian claims of the postmodernists - nullify other systems of interpretation. In a way, psychoanalysis rehabilitates the realm of myth and the structures of sacredness, which in the case of Jung and some of his followers comes close to traditionalism and the rejection of the narrow rationalism of Modernity. The Eranos seminars provide ample illustration of these points of contact.

Deconstruction

Deconstruction, proposed by the postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida [31] is a development of the method of philosophical destruction justified by Heidegger in Sein und Zeit [32] as we have already mentioned. Heidegger originally intended to place a philosophical school, theory or terminology within the deliberately defined structure of the history of philosophy. In Heidegger's own case, this structure was defined by a process of gradual oblivion of being until the very question of being and its relation to being (ontologische Differrenz) was removed. In this sense and in a broader context, deconstruction can be applied in a wide variety of disciplines to recover the original positions of what the late Wittgenstein [33] calls the 'language game': it is a thorough and correct semantic analysis that takes into account all layers of meaning, from the point at which a term, idea or theory, as well as a story or mythological narrative, first appears, to a careful analysis of the contexts in which the semantics has changed, been distorted, gone through breaking points and shifting phases. Again, the Heideggerian model of the history of philosophy, relevant and productive in itself, need not be taken as the only one.

Mythanalysis

The study of myth as a sustained writing of interconnected images, figures, actions and events allows us to elucidate the characteristic features of narratives often belonging to very different eras, situations and cultural strata. If deconstruction seeks to find the original core of a separate body of knowledge or episteme and trace its development and mutations, mythanalysis (Durand [34]), on the other hand, aims to identify similar patterns and algorithms of culture and different areas of consciousness, confirming structural unity. 

In some cases, mythoanalysis can be closely aligned with Jungian psychoanalysis. In other cases, however, it can be applied to completely different phenomena in the fields of sociology, anthropology, political science and cultural studies [35].

Differentialist anti-racism

The critique of all forms of ethnocentrism, and in particular of claims to construct hierarchies between peoples, cultures and different types of societies, need not be based on extreme individualism, aprioristic apology of any minority and legitimisation of deviance. The plurality of cultures should be recognised as a semagenetic law, because meanings only arise in culture - and in each culture. And each culture establishes its own criteria and evaluations, by which it measures itself and everything in the zone of its influence.

Recognition of the complex multicultural structure of human societies leads to differentialism and the complete rejection of hierarchy. Moreover, the reduction to the individual, which is the basis of the egalitarian morality of postmodernism, destroys cultural ensembles instead of protecting and strengthening them. Differentialist anti-racism, on the contrary, merely postulates differences between societies, without attempting to evaluate them with the help of a general 'transcendental' criterion (which in principle cannot exist and any candidate for such status would only be a projection of one of the societies), nor to destroy them.

This reading of the school of Boas [36] and Lévi-Strauss [37] was characteristic of the Russian Eurasians and the French New Right, but such a methodology can be extended significantly beyond their respective theoretical systems and schools.

Critique of the scientific image of the world

Alternative ontologies to the nominalist naturalistic-scientific framework, which constitute one of the most interesting and attractive aspects of postmodernity (Foucault [38], Latour[39], Feyerabend [40]), can also be investigated and reconstructed outside the postmodern field.

This approach generally refers to Husserl's critique of the European modern sciences [41], which - like everything concerning phenomenology - constitutes a completely separate and complete scientific field. At the same time, it is necessary to take a closer look at those scientific conceptions that existed in the pre-modern era and that have been disrupted with the advent of the modern. In Europe, we are mainly concerned with the scientific ontologies of Aristotle and partly with Hermeticism [42]. However, the Postmodern categorically does not do so, building its critique of scientism solely on the desire to overcome the shortcomings of the world's scientific framework from the position of the 'new open' - relativity theory, quantum theory, general field theory, modal logic, superstring theory, etc. - without referring to the science of the Premodern, considering it, like the scientists of Modernity, merely a 'crude approximation' and a set of 'false prejudices'. At the same time, however, it was the development of a critique of modern science on the basis of an attempt to overcome its limitations and correct its obvious errors with the rediscovery of the sacred sciences, over and above the original pejorative attitude towards them, that could give a completely different horizon to natural scientific knowledge as a whole [43].

The critique of the rationalism underlying the scientific approach, as well as of the rigid Cartesian dualism and the crude mechanism of Newton's materialist ontology, leads on the one hand to a more subtle and nuanced understanding of the mind, and on the other hand rehabilitates Platonic and Aristotelian notions of the ontological superiority of the mind - in Aristotle the 'active intellect', in Plato the divine Nous (Νοῦς). And from this beginning it is possible to develop new scientific ontologies - by properly understanding the conceptions of nature inherent in the cultures of Antiquity and the Middle Ages (instead of the parody with which the history of science is confronted today), to relate them to the conclusions of the latest trends in science. This would be extremely fruitful, but the very progressive dogmatism of Postmodernism rigidly blocks this direction. Outside of Postmodernism, however, there are no obstacles to such a quest.

Critique of modernity

The critique of modernity in general in the case of postmodernists repeats the logic of Marx's critique of capitalism. Marx believed that capitalism was an utterly abominable phenomenon that had to be combated, but he recognised its historical inevitability and even its progressiveness in comparison to other pre-capitalist formations [44] and on this basis drew a strict line between those who, like him, criticised capitalism from post-capitalist positions and those who rejected not only capitalism itself, but also its necessity, inevitability and utility. This was the case with many supporters of conservative socialism, German patriots like Ferdinand Lassalle [45] or Russian narodniki.

The same applies to the critique of modernity. If post-modernists believe that the modern represents a catastrophe and a failure, at the same time they accept its morality and the 'emancipatory' goals it set itself and which, however, it failed to achieve. Despite the correctness and sometimes relevance of this critique, it - like Marxism - suffers from the exaggerated importance of Modernity as destiny, whereas it is only a matter of choice. One can choose Modernity, or one can choose something else, such as Tradition. The willingness to ally oneself with all opponents of modernity is the main characteristic of those who truly reject it. The sharpest and most ruthless criticism of Modernity comes from the traditionalists; it is no coincidence that the French philosopher René Allieu [46] called René Guénon an even more radical revolutionary than Marx. When critics of the modern world - for example André Gide [47], to some extent Antonin Artaud [48], Georges Bataille [49], Ezra Pound [50] or Thomas Eliot [51], as well as some Dadaists and Surrealists - are willing to take Guénon's [52] and Evola's [53] ideas seriously in their merciless critique of modernity, their own arguments take on a special significance, otherwise they lose much of their sharpness and find themselves afflicted by the very disease they are about to eliminate.

Pessimism about Western European civilisation

All this applies to the pessimism about Western European civilisation in its current state. It is criticised from the left, such as Henri Bergson [54], Sartre [55] or Marcuse [56], and from the right, such as Nietzsche, Spengler [57], the Jünger brothers or Cioran [58]. In what they have in common and insofar as the appeal to the alternative extends into the future and draws inspiration from the past, both of these approaches have much value. However, to see this civilisation as something other than disease, deviance or, at worst, the Great Parody and the 'reign of the Antichrist', is to consciously accept its internal logic, to recognise its legitimacy.

Outside of Postmodernity, such a dialogue between right-wing and left-wing critics, however difficult, remained possible. Postmodernity has completely closed this path.

The relevance of sociology

The theses of sociology as a science that emerged in late modernity have great validity in the study of the relationship between society and the individual and above all in the discovery of how fundamental the superiority of society is that it generally determines the entire content of its members. Durkheim [59] called this functionalism: the individual in society is not defined by himself and his supposedly 'autonomous' content, but by the totality of social roles, masks and functions performed.

However, many different conclusions can be drawn from this fundamental sociological statement - the examples of Tönnies [60], Sombart [61], Sorokin [62], Pareto[63], Dumont [64], etc. - show that there is no unambiguous dominance in the development of society and there are no universal regularities. It is possible to see cyclical processes, recessions and rises, epochs of development and decay in societies, but it is not possible to construct linear patterns. And so the spearhead of liberal morality, which demands the liberation of the individual from collective identity, is completely rejected, and the liberal reading of the logic of history as a progressive process of liberation proves to be an untenable chimera. Sociology brilliantly unmasks many modern myths that have the status of 'truths or social laws', even though they are in fact mere power-ideas (Sorel [65]) that are used by ruling elites often for purely selfish purposes.

Sociology unmasks progress as an untenable and unsupported prejudice (Sorokin [66]).

Post-modernity relies on sociology, but only to find new - exotic - strategies for the liberation of the individual and the progressive mutations of society: transgression, changing gender roles, the transition from paranoid collectives to schizophrenic masses (Deleuze/Guattari [67]), the invention of individual languages (Barth [68], Sollers [69], etc.). This is not a return to the general from the individual, but a further fragmentation of the individual towards the sub-individual - towards a 'parliament of organs' (Latour) and a 'factory of micro-desires' (as Deleuze imagined the functioning of the unconscious).

Outside this context, sociology still retains all its hermeneutic potential, restoring the ontological status of the general (holism) and placing the individual (person), rather than the individual, at the centre.

Nihilism

The nihilism of modern Western society was discovered and fixed long before Postmodernism: Nietzsche had already discussed this fundamental phenomenon in some detail and Heidegger [70], developing his ideas, constructed his own theory of nothingness. Indeed, Heidegger's entire philosophy is a search for such paths of thought, following which it would be possible to escape from the nihilist labyrinth. The problem of nothingness has been posed here in the most serious way and remains in all its gravity.

The postmodernists have hastened to declare a monopoly on nihilism. Instead of discovering the tragic nature of modernity or problematising it, they turned it into an easy ironic trope: Deleuze proclaimed the will to nothingness as the main motivation of postmodern culture [71]. In this way, a hasty and partly cynical answer was given before the depth of the question was fully understood. Postmodern nihilism resembles hooliganism and euphathism more than serious philosophy, and attempts to give versions of this unsuccessful joke the status of an epistemological principle - in François Laruelle's non-philosophy [72] or Ray Brasier's transcendental nihilism [73] - definitively dogmatise the product of philosophical failure.

The nihilism of the modern world still needs deep reflection and most probably a radical overcoming in the spirit of Nietzsche, who defined the superman as the 'victor of God and nothingness' [74], dealt with in detail in Julius Evola's Riding the Tiger [75].

Relativeisation of man

Continuing along the lines of Nietzsche with his call to 'dehumanise being', many 20th century thinkers raised the question of man's limits and questioned his central position in being. Ortega y Gasset drew attention to the dehumanisation of art [76]. In turn, Ernst Jünger [77] described the phenomenology of the displacement of human nature itself by the technocratic structures of modernity.

From this starting position, thought could go - and indeed did go for a time - in different directions, for example towards the ethology of Konrad Lorenz [78], the theory of the 'environment' of Jakob von Uexküll [79], the critique of technology by Friedrich Georg, brother of Ernst Jünger [80] or the 'ecology of the mind' of Gregory Bateson [81].

Postmodernity has placed this position in the glorification of mutations, the call for the creation of chimerical bio-mechanical species and the denunciation of all essentialism. The struggle against anthropocentrism has surpassed all limits of reasonableness and, with the support of cognitive science, behaviourism and digital technology, has turned into a veritable project of the elimination of man as a species, as glorified by futurologists extolling the Singularity - such as Yuval Noah Harari [82] or Ray Kurzweil [83].

The discovery of the inner dimension of man

The discovery of the inner dimension of man, although summarised by the modernist Georges Bataille in his essay The Inner Experience [84], is by no means the prerogative of the moderns. Already the Apostle Paul wrote about the inner man. The very doctrine of the soul, characteristic of traditional religions, speaks of exactly this. Modernity, with its reliance on materialism and the theory of evolution, has almost completely lost this dimension, building its epistemology and psychology on the model of a man without a soul, i.e. without a sovereign inner dimension. The fact that this dimension was spontaneously discovered by some avant-garde artists - surrealists, non-conformists, etc. - in the course of their immersion in understanding the crisis of Modernity does not mean that the inner man is a 20th century discovery.

Characteristically, in parallel with this spontaneous discovery, the traditionalist Julius Evola [85] and his master René Guénon [86] provided the most extensive descriptions of radical subjectivity.

The same line was actively developed by the personalists who followed Mounier [87] and Henri Corbin [88] and his followers (Jambe [89], Lardreau [90], Laurie [91], etc.) gave it a more pronounced meaning in the figure of the Angel (quoted in the same context by Rilke and Heidegger as a comment on his poetry).

Consequently, in Postmodernity this theme is secondary, and critical realists in general are radically opposed to any reference to the inner dimension - unless it is the inner dimension of things themselves, completely devoid of any connection to Dasein (Harman [92]).

Outside the postmodern context, this issue is again the problematic of the radical Subject [93] - the most important issue in philosophy.

Political theology

Political theology was formulated as a theory of the philosophy of the Political by Carl Schmitt [94]. The fact that Schmitt's ideas have been developed by left-wing philosophers close to postmodernism - Taubes [95], Mouf [96], Agamben [97] - does not change anything to the fact that this theory has a completely autonomous meaning and can be considered quite independently of postmodernist interpretations - bare life, negative catechism, etc. - and that it is a theory of political theology.

Moreover, it is in the context of the entire philosophy of Card Schmitt, who was a consistent and convinced conservative and critic of Modernity as such, that 'political theology' is truly whole.

Postmodernity and Alternative Traditionalism

This preliminary analysis, however rough, opens up a fundamental line of thought for us. Postmodernity has seriously confused the cards in the philosophical sphere, claiming (not justifiably) to sum up the intellectual history of humanity. But by rejecting it outright, we in turn find ourselves in a difficult situation, since we are forced to refer only to the previous era of Modernity, which is in fact in many respects overtaken by Postmodernity, and whose arguments the postmodernists have learned to deal with easily. Moreover, by rejecting Postmodernity we are at odds with Modernity itself, which (and on this point the postmodernists are right) is really the culmination of modernist Enlightenment morality. And at the same time, Postmodernism's appeal to a number of critical strands, if rejected in its entirety, forces it to discard them as well.

Similarly, Postmodernism's formal gravitation towards the 'sacred' and the other directions we have identified as positive and constructive may in part discredit the structures of Premodernism. A direct appeal to Tradition without taking into account the fundamental influence that Modernity and Postmodernity have had on almost all modern societies, both Western and non-Western, is not possible at all, since we are separated from the Premodern by a semantic wall in which the rays of authentic Tradition are extinguished or modified beyond recognition. To reach the Tradition, we must first confront the Modern and Postmodern. Otherwise, we will have to remain in the zone of their epistemological influence.

Therefore, the phenomenon we have provisionally called 'alternative Postmodernity' is of paramount importance. It cannot be avoided and we cannot do without it. Of course, the core should be traditionalism and the most radical critique of Modernity, but without a lively dialogue with the intellectual environment, pure traditionalism quickly degenerates and loses its strength, turning into an impotent and unattractive sect. The Postmodern alternative, on the other hand, awakens and mobilises the inner potential of traditionalism. The traditionalist Julius Evola undertook something similar, responding in his works to the most diverse philosophical, cultural, political and scientific challenges of modernity, without any fear of departing from traditionalist orthodoxy, because in our extreme critical conditions of cyclical decay, there simply cannot be any orthodoxy. We should do the same in the new cycle.

[1] Деррида Ж. Письмо и различие. М.: Академический проект, 2007.

[2] Heidegger M. Sein und Zeit. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klosterman, 1977. S. 27.

[3] Land N. Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987-2007. New York; Windsor Quarry (Falmouth): Sequence; Urbanomic, 2011.

[4] Deleuze G. La logique du sens. P.: Editions de Minuit, 1969. 

[5] Kristeva J. Le révolution du langage poétique. P.: Seuil, 1974.

[6] Lyotard J.-F. Le Postmoderne expliqué aux enfants : Correspondance 1982-1985. P.: Galilée, 1988.

[7] Хардт М., Негри A. Империя. М.: Праксис, 2004

[8] Hobsbawm E., Ranger T.  L'Invention de la tradition. P.: Éditions Amsterdam, 2006.

[9] Фуко М. История безумия в классическую эпоху. СПб. : Университетская книга, 1997.

[10] Батай Ж. Проклятая часть. М.: Ладомир, 2006; Он же. Сад и обычный человек. Суверенный человек Сада // Маркиз де Сад и XX век. М.: Культура, 1992.

[11] Kristeva J. Le Génie féminin: la vie, la folie, les mots. P.: Fayard, 1999.

[12] Haraway D. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York; London: Routledge; Free Association Books, 1991.

[13] Guattari F. L'Anti-Œdipe. Capitalisme et schizophrénie.  (avec Gilles Deleuze). P.: Minuit, , 1972; Idem. Chaosmose. P.: Galilée, 1992.

[14] Latour B. Reassembling the social. An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: OUP, 2005.

[15] Deleuze G. La logique du sens.

[16] Бодрийяр  Ж. Символический обмен и смерть. М.: Добросвет, 2000.

[17] Lévy B.-H. Le Testament de Dieu. P.: Grasset, 1979.

[18] Haraway D. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press, 2016.

[19] Генон Р. Кризис современного мира. М.: Арктогея, 1991.

[20] Brentano F. Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte. Frankfurt am Main: Ontos, 2008.

[21] Brentano F. Die Psychologie des Aristoteles, insbesondere seine Lehre vom nous poietikos. Mainz: Franz Kirchheim, 1867. 

[22] Dumézil G. L’Idéologie des trois fonctions dans les épopées des peuples indo-européens. P.: Gallimard, 1968.

[23] Пропп В. Я. Исторические корни волшебной сказки. Л.: Издательство ЛГУ, 1986.

[24] Греймас А. Структурная семантика. Поиск метода. М.: Академический проект, 2004.

[25] Boas F. The mind of primitive man. A course of lectures delivered before the Lowell institute, 1910-1911. L.: The Macmillan company, 1911.

[26] Юнг К.Г. Психология бессознательного. М.: Когито-Центр, 2010.

[27] Вебер М. Избранное: Протестантская этика и дух капитализма. М.: Российская политическая энциклопедия, 2006.

[28] Джеймс У. Прагматизм: новое название для некоторых старых методов мышления: Популярные лекции по философии. М.: ЛКИ, 2011.

[29] Делез Ж., Гваттари Ф. Тысяча плато: Капитализм и шизофрения. Екатеринбург; Москва: У-Фактория; Астрель, 2010.

[30] Делез Ж., Гваттари Ф. Анти-Эдип: Капитализм и шизофрения. Екатеринбург.: У-Фактория, 2007..

[31] Деррида Ж. Письмо и различие.

[32] Heidegger M. Sein und Zeit.

[33] Витгенштейн Л. Голубая и Коричневая книги: предварительные материалы к «Философским исследованиям». Новосибирск: Сибирское университетское изд-во, 2008.

[34] Durand G. Introduction à la mythodologie. Mythes et sociétés. : Albin Michel, 1996; Idem. Figures mythiques et visages de l'œuvre. De la mythocritique à la mythanalyse. P.: Berg International, 1979.

[35] Дугин А.Г. Воображение. Философия, социология, структуры. М.: Академический проект, 2015.

[36] Boas F. Race, Language and Culture. Toronto: Collier MacMillan, 1940.

[37] Леви-Строс К. Структурная антропология. М.: Академический Проект, 2008.

[38] Фуко М. Археология знания.  СПб.: ИЦ «Гуманитарная Академия»; Университетская книга, 2004; Он же. Слова и вещи. Археология гуманитарных наук. СПб: А-cad, 1994ж Он же. Воля к истине: по ту сторону знания, власти и сексуальности. Работы разных лет. М.: Касталь, 1996.

[39] Латур Б. Нового времени не было. Эссе по симметричной антропологии. СПб.: Издательство Европейского университета в Санкт-Петербурге, 2006.

[40]  Фейерабенд П. Против метода. Очерк анархистской теории познания. М.: АСТ; Хранитель, 2007.

[41] Гуссерль Э. Кризис европейских наук и трансцендентальная феноменология. Введение в феноменологическую философию. СПб.: Владимир Даль, 2004.

[42] Дугин А.Г. Интернальные Онтологии. Сакральная физика и опрокинутый мир. Москва ; Берлин : Директмедиа Паблишинг, 2022.

[43] Дугин А.Г. Интернальные онтологии. Сакральная физика и опрокинутый мир. 

[44] Маркс К., Фридрих Э. Из ранних произведений. М.: Государственное издательство политической литературы, 1956.

[45] Lassalle F. Reden und Schriften. Neue Gesamtausgabe. Mit einer biographischen Einleitung. Band 1–3., Berlin: Expedition des Vorwärts Berliner Volksblatt, 1892–1893.

[46] Alleau R. De Marx a Guénon: d’une critique «radicale» à une critique «principielle» de sociétés modernes/ Les Dossiers H. René Guénon. P.: L’Âge d’Homme, 1984.

[47] Жид А. Собрание сочинений в 7 томах.  М.: Терра; Книжный клуб , 2002.

[48] Арто А. Театр и его двойник: Манифесты. Драматургия. Лекции. СПб.; М.: Симпозиум, 2000.

[49] Батай Ж. Проклятая часть: Сакральная социология. М.: Ладомир, 2006.

[50] Pound E. Guide to Kulchur. L.: Faber & Faber, 1938.

[51] Элиот Т.С. Избранная поэзия. СПб.: Северо-Запад, 1994.

[52]Генон Р. Кризис современного мира. М.: Арктогея, 1991; Он же. Восток и Запад. М.: Беловодье, 2005; Он же. Царство количества и знамения времени. Очерки об индуизме. Эзотеризм Данте. М.: Беловодье, 2003.

[53] Эвола Ю. Восстание против современного мира. М.: Прометей, 2016. 

[54] Бергсон А. Творческая эволюция. Материя и память. Минск: Харвест, 1999.

[55] Сартр Ж. П. Бытие и ничто: Опыт феноменологической онтологии. М.: Республика, 2000.

[56] Маркузе Г. Одномерный человек.  М.: Refl-book, 1994.

[57] Шпенглер О. Закат Европы: очерки морфологии мировой истории: В 2 т. М.: Мысль, 1998.

[58] Чоран Э. После конца истории. СПб: Симпозиум, 2002.

[59] Дюркгейм Э. Социология. Её предмет, метод, предназначение. М.: Канон, 1995.

[60] Тённис Ф. Общность и общество. Основные понятия чистой социологии. М.; СПб.: Фонд Университет; Владимир Даль, 2002.

[61] Зомбарт В.. Собрание сочинений в 3 томах. СПб: Владимир Даль, 2005 – 2008.

[62] Сорокин П. А. Социальная и культурная динамика: Исследования изменений в больших системах искусства, истины, этики, права и общественных отношений. М.: Астрель, 2006.

[63] Парето В. Компендиум по общей социологии. М.: Издательский дом ГУ ВШЭ, 2008. 

[64] Дюмон Л.  Homo hierarchicus: опыт описания системы каст. М.: Евразия, 2001; Он же. Homo aequalis, I. Генезис и расцвет экономической идеологии. М.: Nota Bene, 2000; Он же. Эссе об индивидуализме. Дубна: Феникс, 1997.

[65] Sorel G. Commitment and Change: Georges Sorel and the idea of revolution. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978.

[66] Сорокин П.А. Человек. Цивилизация. Общество. М.· Политиздат, 1992.

[67] Делез Ж., Гваттари Ф. Анти-Эдип: Капитализм и шизофрения.

[68] Barthes R. La mort de l'auteur. P.: Mantéia, 1968.

[69] Sollers Ph. L'Écriture et l'Expérience des Limites. P.: Seuil, 1968.

[70] Heidegger M. Nietzsche. 2 B. (G/A 6.1, 6.2). Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1996-1997.

[71] Делёз Ж. Логика смысла. М.: Академический проект, 2010.

[72] Laruelle F. Principes de la non-philosophie. P.: PUF, 1996.

[73] Brassier R. Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007)

[74] Ницше Ф. К генеалогии морали/Ницше Ф. Сочинения в 2 т. Т. 2. М.: Мысль, 1996. С. 471.

[75] Эвола Ю. Оседлать тигра. М.: Владимир Даль, 2005.

[76] Ортега-и-Гассет Х. Дегуманизация искусства. М.: Издательство АСТ, 2008.Оруэлл Дж. 1984. Скотный Двор. М.: АСТ, 2014.

[77] Юнгер Э. Рабочий. Господство и гештальт; Тотальная мобилизация; О боли. СПб.: Наука Год, 2000.

[78] Лоренц К. Агрессия (так называемое «зло»). М.: «Прогресс», «Универс», 1994.

[79] Uexküll J. Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen: Ein Bilderbuch unsichtbarer Welten. Berlin: J. Springer, 1934; Idem. Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen. Bedeutungslehre. Frankfurt a. M.: S. Fischer, 1970; Idem. Das allmächtige Leben. Hamburg: Christian Wegner Verlag, 1950.

[80] Юнгер Ф. Г. Совершенство техники. Машина и собственность. СПб: Издательство «Владимир Даль», 2002.

[81] Бейтсон Г. Экология разума: Избранные статьи по антропологии, психиатрии и эпистемологии. М.: Смысл, 2000.

[82] Harari Y. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. L.: Harvill Secker, 2014; Idem. Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. L.: Vintage, 2017.

[83] Kurzweil R. The singularity is near. NY: Viking, 2005.

[84] Батай Ж. Внутренний Опыт. СПб: Axioma/Мифрил, 1997.   

[85] Evola J. Teoria dell'individuo assoluto. Torino: Bocca, 1927; Idem. Fenomenologia dell'individuo assoluto. Torino: Bocca, 1930; Idem. Lo Yoga della potenza. Torino: Bocca, 1949.

[86] Генон Р. Человек и его осуществление согласно Веданте. Восточная метафизика. М.:Беловодье, 2004.

[87] Mounier E. Œuvres, 4 volumes. P.: Seuil, 1961-1962.

[88] Corbin H. L’Homme et son Ange. P.: Fayard, 1983.

[89] Jambet C. L’acte de l’être. P.: Fayard, 2002.

[90] Lardreau G., Jambet C. Ontologie de la révolution I. L'Ange : Pour une cynégétique du semblant. P.:Grasset, 1976.

[91] Lory P. La dignité de l'homme face aux anges, aux animaux et aux djinns. P.: Albin Michel, 2018.

[92] HarmanG. Tool-Being. Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects. Chicago: Open Court, 2002.

[93] Дугин А.Г. Радикальный субъект и его дубль. М.: Евразийское движение, 2009.

[94] Шмитт К. Политическая теология. М. : Канон-Пресс-Ц : Кучково поле, 2000.

[95] Taubes J. Abendländische Eschatologie. München: Matthes & Seitz, 1991; Таубес Я. Ad Carl Scmitt. Сопряжение противостремительного. СПб.: «Владимир Даль», 2021

[96] Mouffe Ch. On the political. London ; New York : Routledge, 2005.

[97] Агамбен Дж. Homo sacer. Суверенная власть и голая жизнь. М.: Европа, 2011; Он же. Оставшееся время: Комментарий к Посланию к Римлянам. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2018.

Reference list:

Alleau R. De Marx a Guénon: d’une critique «radicale» à une critique «principielle» de sociétés modernes/ Les Dossiers H. René Guénon. P.: L’Âge d’Homme, 1984.
Barthes R. La mort de l'auteur. P.: Mantéia, 1968.
Boas F. Race, Language and Culture. Toronto: Collier MacMillan, 1940.
Boas F. The mind of primitive man. A course of lectures delivered before the Lowell institute, 1910-1911. L.: The Macmillan company, 1911.
Brassier R. Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Brentano F. Die Psychologie des Aristoteles, insbesondere seine Lehre vom nous poietikos. Mainz: Franz Kirchheim, 1867.
Brentano F. Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte. Frankfurt am Main: Ontos, 2008.
Corbin H. L’Homme et son Ange. P.: Fayard, 1983.
Deleuze G. La logique du sens. P.: Editions de Minuit, 1969.
Dumézil G. L’Idéologie des trois fonctions dans les épopées des peuples indo-européens. P.: Gallimard, 1968.
Durand G. Introduction à la mythodologie. Mythes et sociétés. : Albin Michel, 1996.
Durand G Figures mythiques et visages de l'œuvre. De la mythocritique à la mythanalyse. P.: Berg International, 1979.
Evola J. Teoria dell'individuo assoluto. Torino: Bocca, 1927.
Evola J. Fenomenologia dell'individuo assoluto. Torino: Bocca, 1930.
Evola JLo Yoga della potenza. Torino: Bocca, 1949.
Guattari F. L'Anti-Œdipe. Capitalisme et schizophrénie. (avec Gilles Deleuze). P.: Minuit, , 1972.
Guattari F. Chaosmose. P.: Galilée, 1992.
Harari Y. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. L.: Harvill Secker, 2014.
Harari Y. Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. L.: Vintage, 2017.
Haraway D. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York; London: Routledge; Free Association Books, 1991.
Haraway D. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press, 2016.
Harman G. Tool-Being. Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects. Chicago: Open Court, 2002.
Heidegger M. Nietzsche. 2 B. (G/A 6.1, 6.2). Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1996-1997.
Heidegger M. Sein und Zeit. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klosterman, 1977.
Hobsbawm E., Ranger T.  L'Invention de la tradition. P.: Éditions Amsterdam, 2006.
Jambet C. L’acte de l’être. P.: Fayard, 2002.
Kristeva J. Le Génie féminin: la vie, la folie, les mots. P.: Fayard, 1999.
Kristeva J. Le révolution du langage poétique. P.: Seuil, 1974.
Kurzweil R. The singularity is near. NY: Viking, 2005.
Land N. Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987-2007. New York; Windsor Quarry (Falmouth): Sequence; Urbanomic, 2011.
Lardreau G., Jambet C. Ontologie de la révolution I. L'Ange : Pour une cynégétique du semblant. P.:Grasset, 1976.
Laruelle F. Principes de la non-philosophie. P.: PUF, 1996.
Lassalle F. Reden und Schriften. Neue Gesamtausgabe. Mit einer biographischen Einleitung. Band 1–3., Berlin: Expedition des Vorwärts Berliner Volksblatt, 1892–1893.
Latour B. Reassembling the social. An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: OUP, 2005.
Lévy B.-H. Le Testament de Dieu. P.: Grasset, 1979.
Lory P. La dignité de l'homme face aux anges, aux animaux et aux djinns. P.: Albin Michel, 2018.
Lyotard J.-F. Le Postmoderne expliqué aux enfants : Correspondance 1982-1985. P.: Galilée, 1988.
Mouffe Ch. On the political. London ; New York : Routledge, 2005.
Mounier E. Œuvres, 4 volumes. P.: Seuil, 1961-1962.
Pound E. Guide to Kulchur. L.: Faber & Faber, 1938.
Sollers Ph. L'Écriture et l'Expérience des Limites. P.: Seuil, 1968.
Sorel G. Commitment and Change: Georges Sorel and the idea of revolution. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978.
Taubes J. Abendländische Eschatologie. München: Matthes & Seitz, 1991
Uexküll J. Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen: Ein Bilderbuch unsichtbarer Welten. Berlin: J. Springer, 1934.
Uexküll J. Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen. Bedeutungslehre. Frankfurt a. M.: S. Fischer, 1970.
Uexküll J.  Das allmächtige Leben. Hamburg: Christian Wegner Verlag, 1950.
Агамбен Дж. Homo sacer. Суверенная власть и голая жизнь. М.: Европа, 2011.
Агамбен Дж. Оставшееся время: Комментарий к Посланию к Римлянам. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2018.
Арто А. Театр и его двойник: Манифесты. Драматургия. Лекции. СПб.; М.: Симпозиум, 2000.
Батай Ж. Внутренний Опыт. СПб: Axioma/Мифрил, 1997.  
Батай Ж. Проклятая часть: Сакральная социология. М.: Ладомир, 2006.
Батай Ж. Проклятая часть. М.: Ладомир, 2006; Он же. Сад и обычный человек. Суверенный человек Сада // Маркиз де Сад и XX век. М.: Культура, 1992.
Бейтсон Г. Экология разума: Избранные статьи по антропологии, психиатрии и эпистемологии. М.: Смысл, 2000.
Бергсон А. Творческая эволюция. Материя и память. Минск: Харвест, 1999.
Бодрийяр  Ж. Символический обмен и смерть. М.: Добросвет, 2000.
Вебер М. Избранное: Протестантская этика и дух капитализма. М.: Российская политическая энциклопедия, 2006.
Витгенштейн Л. Голубая и Коричневая книги: предварительные материалы к «Философским исследованиям». Новосибирск: Сибирское университетское изд-во, 2008.
Генон Р. Кризис современного мира. М.: Арктогея, 1991.
Генон Р. Восток и Запад. М.: Беловодье, 2005.
Генон Р. Царство количества и знамения времени. Очерки об индуизме. Эзотеризм Данте. М.: Беловодье, 2003.
Генон Р. Человек и его осуществление согласно Веданте. Восточная метафизика. М.:Беловодье, 2004.
Греймас А. Структурная семантика. Поиск метода. М.: Академический проект, 2004.
Гуссерль Э. Кризис европейских наук и трансцендентальная феноменология. Введение в феноменологическую философию. СПб.: Владимир Даль, 2004.
Делёз Ж. Логика смысла. М.: Академический проект, 2010.
Делез Ж., Гваттари Ф. Анти-Эдип: Капитализм и шизофрения. Екатеринбург.: У-Фактория, 2007..
Делез Ж., Гваттари Ф. Тысяча плато: Капитализм и шизофрения. Екатеринбург; Москва: У-Фактория; Астрель, 2010.
Деррида Ж. Письмо и различие. М.: Академический проект, 2007.
Джеймс У. Прагматизм: новое название для некоторых старых методов мышления: Популярные лекции по философии. М.: ЛКИ, 2011.
Дугин А.Г. Воображение. Философия, социология, структуры. М.: Академический проект, 2015.
Дугин А.Г. Интернальные Онтологии. Сакральная физика и опрокинутый мир. Москва; Берлин : Директмедиа Паблишинг, 2022.
Дугин А.Г. Радикальный субъект и его дубль. М.: Евразийское движение, 2009.
Дюмон Л.  Homo hierarchicus: опыт описания системы каст. М.: Евразия, 2001.
Дюмон Л.  Homo aequalis, I. Генезис и расцвет экономической идеологии. М.: Nota Bene, 2000.
Дюмон Л.  Эссе об индивидуализме. Дубна: Феникс, 1997.
Дюркгейм Э. Социология. Её предмет, метод, предназначение. М.: Канон, 1995.
Жид А. Собрание сочинений в 7 томах.  М.: Терра; Книжный клуб , 2002.
Зомбарт В.. Собрание сочинений в 3 томах. СПб: Владимир Даль, 2005 – 2008.
Латур Б. Нового времени не было. Эссе по симметричной антропологии. СПб.: Издательство Европейского университета в Санкт-Петербурге, 2006.
Леви-Строс К. Структурная антропология. М.: Академический Проект, 2008.
Лоренц К. Агрессия (так называемое «зло»). М.: «Прогресс», «Универс», 1994.
Маркс К., Фридрих Э. Из ранних произведений. М.: Государственное издательство политической литературы, 1956.
Маркузе Г. Одномерный человек.  М.: Refl-book, 1994.
Ницше Ф. К генеалогии морали/Ницше Ф. Сочинения в 2 т. Т. 2. М.: Мысль, 1996.
Ортега-и-Гассет Х. Дегуманизация искусства. М.: Издательство АСТ, 2008.
Оруэлл Дж. 1984. Скотный Двор. М.: АСТ, 2014.
Парето В. Компендиум по общей социологии. М.: Издательский дом ГУ ВШЭ, 2008.
Пропп В. Я. Исторические корни волшебной сказки. Л.: Издательство ЛГУ, 1986.
Сартр Ж. П. Бытие и ничто: Опыт феноменологической онтологии. М.: Республика, 2000.
Сорокин П. А. Социальная и культурная динамика: Исследования изменений в больших системах искусства, истины, этики, права и общественных отношений. М.: Астрель, 2006.
Сорокин П.А. Человек. Цивилизация. Общество. М.· Политиздат, 1992.
Таубес Я. Ad Carl Scmitt. Сопряжение противостремительного. СПб.: «Владимир Даль», 2021
Тённис Ф. Общность и общество. Основные понятия чистой социологии. М.; СПб.: Фонд Университет; Владимир Даль, 2002.
Фейерабенд П. Против метода. Очерк анархистской теории познания. М.: АСТ; Хранитель, 2007.
Фуко М. Археология знания.  СПб.: ИЦ «Гуманитарная Академия»; Университетская книга, 2004.
Фуко М. Слова и вещи. Археология гуманитарных наук. СПб: А-cad, 1994.
Фуко М. Воля к истине: по ту сторону знания, власти и сексуальности. Работы разных лет. М.: Касталь, 1996.
Фуко М. История безумия в классическую эпоху. СПб. : Университетская книга, 1997.
Хардт М., Негри A. Империя. М.: Праксис, 2004
Чоран Э. После конца истории. СПб: Симпозиум, 2002.
Шмитт К. Политическая теология. М. : Канон-Пресс-Ц : Кучково поле, 2000.
Шпенглер О. Закат Европы: очерки морфологии мировой истории: В 2 т. М.: Мысль, 1998.
Эвола Ю. Восстание против современного мира. М.: Прометей, 2016.
Эвола Ю. Оседлать тигра. М.: Владимир Даль, 2005.
Элиот Т.С. Избранная поэзия. СПб.: Северо-Запад, 1994.
Юнг К.Г. Психология бессознательного. М.: Когито-Центр, 2010.
Юнгер Ф. Г. Совершенство техники. Машина и собственность. СПб: Издательство «Владимир Даль», 2002.
Юнгер Э. Рабочий. Господство и гештальт; Тотальная мобилизация; О боли. СПб.: Наука, 2000.

Translation by Lorenzo Maria Pacini