/lit/ - Literature

>>18685469
Poets: Eminescu (reminds me of Goethe and Pushkin),
Bacovia (reminds me of Poe),
N.Stanescu (reminds me of the homeless drunk outside of my house),
Labiş (reminds me of Bambi's mom)

Novelists: Sadoveanu (reminds me of Stalin if he read Hegel's works on philosophy),
V. Alecsandri & Russo (reminds of Homer-wanna-be's),
M.Preda (reminds me of Nabokov), I.L.Caragiale (reminds me of Alan Moore, without drugs),
Rebreanu (reminds me of being bored),
Cartarescu (reminds me of Gillez Deleuze if he cut his nails idk),
Eliade (reminds me of HEliade)
Ionesco (reminds of the fact that any foreigner can be as pretensious as the French)

Philosophers: Cioran (reminds me of Nietzscheans who wanted to return to Schope, but had such a great social life, that they decided that tiramisu and coffee is OG suffering)
Blaga (Heidegger who had chemo and actually read Hegel)

Exhibit C

Eliade says in his PhD thesis that Vedic philosophy was already one step ahead of current Western philosophy, because it recognized, as a matter of course, the "contingency" or "historicity" thesis whereby social, historical, psychological existence is contingent and flows in history. Vedic philosophy just accepted all this, and then moved to the next step of seeking the transcendent ground.

He says that Western social science and philosophy are hung up on this idea that contingency is inescapable and must either be surrendered to or embraced. Obviously most German and French philosophy of the 20th century agrees with this, by saying that there can be no transcendental ground of philosophical inquiry and that even the subject is historically contingent, an "empirico-transcendental doublet" resulting from a certain metaphysics and a certain socio-economic experience in history.

Is Western philosophy failing to reach the next step already known by Indian metaphysics for thousands of years? The step from a transcendental to a transcendent philosophy?

I am suspicious because Eliade says right off the bat that the search for truth, the hallmark of the Western tradition since Plato, is meaningless to the Indian except insofar as it is instrumentalizable toward the quest for transcendence. Deespite the echoes of Heidegger on veritas vs. aletheia, that creeps me out. I am worried about this oriental encroachment on the Western tradition, as if it was all just three thousand years of misguidedness. Can you be a perennialist without wanting to be a Bronze Age slave-owner? Is something like Hegel really just superfluous?