On one level of another, at some point or another, one has to make very real one's spiritual commitment, and in some way one has to translate understanding into deliberate activity and an ethic that reflects one's understanding. My impression of Kierkegaard, and of his renovated and rejuvenated relationship to the 'spirit' of his religion, and his existential link with 'higher reality', is that he carried this forward and carried forward many others too who resonated with his intent.Julius Evola wrote:A religious factor is necessary as a background for a truly heroic conception of life, such as must be essential for our group. It is necessary to feel the evidence in ourselves that beyond this earthly life there is a higher life, because only someone who feels this way possesses a force that cannot be broken or overwhelmed. Only this kind of person will be capable of an absolute leap. When this feeling is lacking, challenging death and placing no value on his own life is possible only in sporadic moments of exaltation and in an unleashing of irrational forces; nor is there a discipline that can justify itself with a higher and autonomous significance in such an individual.
But this spirituality, which ought to be alive among our people, does not need the obligatory dogmatic formulations of a given religious confession. The lifestyle that must be led is not that of Catholic moralism, which aims at little more than a domestication of the human animal based on virtue. Politically, this spirituality can only nourish diffidence before everything that is an integral part of the Christian conception, like humanitarianism, equality, the principle of love, and forgiveness, instead of honour and justice. Certainly, if Catholicism were capable of making a capacity for high asceticism its own, and precisely on that basis to make of the faith the soul of an armed bloc of forces, almost like a resumption of the spirit of the best aspects of the Middle Ages of the Crusades —almost a new order of Templars that will be compact and inexorable against the currents of chaos, surrender, subversion, and the practical materialism of the modern world —in a case like this, and even if at minimum it held firm to the positions of the Syllabus, we would choose it without hesitation.
But as things stand —given, that is, the mediocre and essentially bourgeois and parochial level to which practically everything that is confessional religion has descended, and given its surrender to modernism and the growing opening of the post-conciliar Church of ‘aggiornamento’ [bringing up to date; modernization] to the Left —for our men the mere reference to spirit can suffice, precisely as evidence of a transcendent reality. We must invoke it to inoculate into our force another force, to feel in advance that our struggle is not only a political struggle, and to attract an invisible consecration upon a new world of men and leaders of men.
'A religious factor' does seem to be necessary for heroic activity of that level, and few can illustrate that better than Kierkegaard, though he certainly seemed torn by cross-purpose. In this sense it is the 'bourgeois domestication of virtue' of Wright's Catholicism (likey to be that) which requires animation by a more radical or perhaps determined (religious) spirit. While the 'enlightenment' gambit could not be called 'bourgeois domesticity', it can still be interrogated and its intent examined. It seems more than anything to involute to powerlessness and spiritual flacidity.
When faced with 'currents of chaos, surrender, subversion' one is forced to discover and enunciate that spirit which can operate against those.