A small anti-Traditionalist war machine: Bergson against Guénon

A recent article presents a critique of Guénon’s metaphysics using the French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859–1941). It is Fernando Monegalha, “A tradição e seu outro: Bergson contra Guénon” (Tradition and its Other: Bergson versus Guénon), Revista Ética e Filosofia Política 28:2 (December 2025), available here (open access). It is in Portuguese, but with the help of AI we can all read Portuguese nowadays.

Monegalha suggests that “the far right is a symptom of [the] return of metaphysics, not its cause,” even if many people think the opposite, as the Traditionalist rejection of modernity is metaphysical, not sociological. 

He then attempts “to construct a small anti-Traditionalist war machine by opposing Bergson’s conception of metaphysics to that presented by Guénon in his writings,” beginning with Guénon’s criticism of Bergson and then attempting “a kind of Bergsonian metacritique of Guénon.” We must understand his need for an anti-Traditionalist war machine in terms of Brazilian politics, where the Bolsonaro famiy are associated with Traditionalism through Olavo de Carvalho (see here).

• Guénon understood time as a function of manifestation. The Principle is necessarily timeless; time, including decline to the Kali Yuga, comes with manifestation. 
• Bergson, in contrast, held that duration and creative change characterize even the ultimate Principle.
• For Guénon, this showed that Bergson’s metaphysics was wrong and distinctively modern.
• Monegalha argues that Guénon misunderstood Bergson. 

What is less clear, however, is whether Monegalha has achieved his objective of critiquing Guénon’s metaphysics in general, rather than just his understanding (and so critique) of Bergson. Bergson’s conception of duration is certainly incompatible with Guénon’s conception of the relationship between time and eternity, so they cannot both be right, but how do we know that Bergson was right, not Guénon?