¶1 In this study, we do not intend to attach ourselves especially to the social point of view, which interests us only very indirectly, because it represents only a rather distant application of fundamental principles, and because, consequently, it is not in this domain that a redress of the modern world could, in any case, begin.1 This redress, in fact, if it were thus undertaken backwards – that is to say, starting from consequences instead of from principles – would necessarily lack a serious foundation and would be entirely illusory;2 nothing stable could ever result from it, and everything would have to be continually begun again, because one would have neglected above all to agree upon the essential truths.3 That is why it is not possible for us to attribute to political contingencies,4 even giving this word its broadest sense, any value other than that of mere external signs of the mentality of an epoch;5 but, even from this very point of view, we cannot entirely pass over in silence the manifestations of modern disorder6 in the properly social domain.
⤒
→

Summary

Guénon explains that this study will not focus on the social point of view, which interests him only indirectly as a distant application of fundamental principles. He argues that any attempt to redress the modern world beginning from the social realm would be backwards, starting from consequences rather than principles, and would therefore lack a serious foundation. Such an approach would be illusory and produce nothing stable, requiring constant fresh starts because essential truths would not be agreed upon first. For this reason, he treats political contingencies merely as external signs of an epoch’s mentality, though he does not ignore the manifestations of modern disorder in the social domain itself.

General notes

  1. redressement du monde moderne — Rendered as ‘redress of the modern world’. Guénon uses this term to signify a return to traditional order, a rectification of the deviations caused by modern errors. This is not a reform in the political sense but a restoration of metaphysical and spiritual principles. ↩︎
  2. illusoire — Rendered as ‘illusory’. Guénon contrasts illusion here with metaphysical reality; that which lacks a serious foundation belongs to the phenomenal and changing world, not to the permanent order of principles. This distinction is central to the Vedāntic notion of māyā (Guénon writes ‘Mâyâ’; standard transliteration is māyā). ↩︎
  3. vérités essentielles — Rendered as ‘essential truths’. These are the universal metaphysical truths, the foundation of every orthodox tradition, which Guénon elsewhere calls the sophia perennis or immemorial wisdom. They are not opinions subject to debate but principles that must be recognised intellectually. ↩︎
  4. contingences politiques — Rendered as ‘political contingencies’. The term ‘contingencies’ refers to what may or may not happen, lacking intrinsic necessity; Guénon deliberately places it in opposition to immutable principles. Politics belongs to the accidental and temporal domain, which cannot serve as a foundation for any genuine restoration. ↩︎
  5. mentalité d’une époque — Rendered as ‘mentality of an epoch’. This expression designates the set of intellectual and spiritual tendencies (or rather, in the modern world, their absence) characterising a given historical period, seen as the superficial effect of deeper causes. Guénon rejects historicism while acknowledging symptomatic patterns. ↩︎
  6. désordre moderne — Rendered as ‘modern disorder’. Guénon characterises by this term the rupture with the normal traditional order, a rupture affecting all domains: intellectual, social, artistic, and religious. The disorder is not accidental chaos but an inversion of authentic hierarchies, a point Guénon develops at length in The Crisis of the Modern World. ↩︎