/lit/ - Literature

der ewige Anglo

>>12707364
You obviously haven't read any of these authors. In most of their books ideas and various thinkers and schools from eastern philosophy among other things are discussed and referenced extensively, this is often what forms the majority of the book aside from the books that devote themselves more to societal critiques. Eastern philosophy includes many areas of rational thought, see:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-india/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-epistemology/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-language-tibetan/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-india/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-india/

The Traditionalists tend to focus on the more mystical and metaphysical eastern thinkers but even these thinkers and their schools often have solid groundings in ontology and epistemology, the Vedantic thinkers use logic all throughout their writings and constantly critique other schools of Indian logic like Nyaya, The Chinese Buddhists and Tibetans have a bunch of writing on ontology and epistemology and so on. And this is all secondary in that most eastern schools generally understood that logic can only go so far and that there are some things which must be experienced intuitively and directly to really comprehend them, although this never precluded them from using logic and rational thought when appropriate. It's the mistaken view that logic is the end-all be-all that has led to the trainwreck of the course that western philosophy took.

That you would consider clowns like Whitehead and Deleuze as more worthwhile than eastern thought (which is what the Traditionalists write about) is really cringe-inducing. Imagine getting memed by a Papuan New Guinian net-weaving community into thinking those people are somehow exemplary thinkers, (or even worse, imagine being the one spamming them in the first place and then being upset when people like the Traditionalists more, yikes!). Whitehead seems interesting if you haven't read much eastern thought but is like a kid playing with crayons compared to Vedantic, Mahayana and even Sufi metaphysics, and unlike him those thinkers were not spiritually atrophied Anglos trying to secularize religion though a pseudometaphysics which inevitably degrades the teachings involved. Deleuze is a useless charlatan, him and his whole nexus of French thinkers in their constant attempts to posture and flex on eachother just regurgitated a mass of already intellectually-bankrupt ideas like Marxism and Freudianism combined with personal attacks on each other. In the cases where they try to lump in Spinoza and Heidegger you can often find easterners who delimit those ideas better anyways. It's all a bunch of meaningless self-referential bullshit, It's like trying to decode an encrypted language only to realize that it's just an encoded tv program guide, there's nothing of worth under all the posturing.