/lit/ - Literature

>>15563465
>holy based

>>15297524
Guenon refuted 'philosophical' metaphysics, you brainlet. Metaphysics stands on its own since it is limitless in its scope.

>>15020131
>24

>Man and His Becoming according to the Vedânta by Guenon (pbuh)
>East and West by Guenon (pbuh)
>The Spiritist Fallacy by Guenon (pbuh)
>Theosophy - History of a Pseudo-Religion by Guenon (pbuh)
>Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines by Guenon (pbuh)

>>15017916
>Guénon was a brainle-
He was proficient at Greek, Latin, English, Italian, German, Spanish, Sanskrit, Hebraic, Arabic and Chinese, was trained in mathematics and was extremely well-read in both eastern and western philosophy
>Guénon was a stupid posing larpe-
He was initiated into both a Vietnamese Taoist Triad as well as the al-'Arabiyya Shadhiliyya Sufi order, furthermore in all his writings he stressed the need for personal and genuine participation in whatever Traditions one aspired to follow. His acquaintances both Egyptian and western observed that he scrupulously followed Islamic observances during his life in Egypt
>Guénon was a literal nobody, he was not influenti-
Among the many western philosophers, artists and authors who were influenced by him or who heaped praise on him include Carl Schmitt, Georges Bataille, Aleksander Dugin, Antonin Artaud, Olavo de Carvalho, André Breton, Mircea Eliade, Alain Danielou, Julius Evola, André Malraux, Albert Gleizes, René Daumal, Raymond Queneau, Paul Ackerman, Huston Smith, William Chittick, Steve Bannon, Harry Oldmeadow, James Cutsinger and Hossein Nasr. Furthermore as Nasr notes in his article 'The Influence of Rene Guenon in the Islamic World', Guénon is well-known and influential among the intelligentsia including traditional Islamic scholars in certain Islamic countries such in Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia.
>Guénon just made a bunch of stupid and unjustified comparisons between religio-
To the contrary over the course of some twenty odd books he painstakingly and patiently elucidated the fundamental agreement between the metaphysics of Advaita Vedanta, Taoism, Sufism, Hermeticism and Christian esoterism, work that Coomaraswamy built on and further confirmed

>>15013126
>Guénon was a brainle-
He was proficient at Greek, Latin, English, Italian, German, Spanish, Sanskrit, Hebraic, Arabic and Chinese, was trained in mathematics and was extremely well-read in both eastern and western philosophy
>Guénon was a stupid posing larpe-
He was initiated into both a Vietnamese Taoist Triad as well as the al-'Arabiyya Shadhiliyya Sufi order, furthermore in all his writings he stressed the need for personal and genuine participation in whatever Traditions one aspired to follow. His acquaintances both Egyptian and western observed that he scrupulously followed Islamic observances during his life in Egypt
>Guénon was a literal nobody, he was not influenti-
Among the many western philosophers, artists and authors who were influenced by him or who heaped praise on him include Carl Schmitt, Georges Bataille, Aleksander Dugin, Antonin Artaud, Olavo de Carvalho, André Breton, Mircea Eliade, Alain Danielou, Julius Evola, André Malraux, Albert Gleizes, René Daumal, Raymond Queneau, Paul Ackerman, Huston Smith, William Chittick, Steve Bannon, Harry Oldmeadow, James Cutsinger and Hossein Nasr. Furthermore as Nasr notes in his article 'The Influence of Rene Guenon in the Islamic World', Guénon is well-known and influential among the intelligentsia including traditional Islamic scholars in certain Islamic countries such in Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia.
>Guénon just made a bunch of stupid and unjustified comparisons between religio-
To the contrary over the course of some twenty odd books he painstakingly and patiently elucidated the fundamental agreement between the metaphysics of Advaita Vedanta, Taoism, Sufism, Hermeticism and Christian esoterism, work that Coomaraswamy built on and further confirmed

ITT: Literary hacks

I'll start with the obvious one

>Indeed, some of the problems commonly engaging the attention of philosophical thought appear to be deprived, not only of all importance, but of any meaning as well; a host of problems arise resting solely upon some ambiguity or upon a confusion of points of view, problems that only exist in fact because they are badly expressed, and that normally should not arise at all. In most cases therefore, it would in itself be sufficient to set these problems forth correctly in order to cause them to disappear, were it not that philosophy has an interest in keeping them alive, since it thrives largely upon ambiguities

>It may be remarked incidentally that the contentions of philosophers are often much more justifiable when they are arguing against other philosophers than when they pass on to expound their own views, and as each one generally sees fairly clearly the defects of the others, they more or less destroy one another mutually