I seem to agree with Papist. I have trouble seeing why some Orthodox don't see the value in what St. Aquinas was trying to do, even though I may disagree with some of the things he may have written, he does write a lot of valuable works.
I've always advocated the integration of rational, emotional, spiritual, and physical relationship with God. While the Holy Fathers tended to be spiritual, we cannot forget that they had a rational component into their ideas in trying to prove things like God's existence, that there is one God, that there is no God of evil and God of good, etc. All these things seem to be based on rational arguments of their times (St. Athanasius commented on how if there was no God, there would be no diversity in creation). To say that they solely talked about experience would be quite naive, if not downright annoying. Imagine how much you have to convince someone who already "feels great" praying to Zeus, feeling that peace and grace of Zeus, and saying "well, you probably feel false peace, I pray to the true God, the King of Peace." In our local church, we had someone who I consider a very influential person who repented from a miserable life of sin, and later on left the Orthodox Church to become Protestant because he just feels the grace of God more there (I looked up to this man too and thought he would make an awesome priest). Is that the type of "experience" we're encouraging? I argued with him saying that you can't just have an emotional experience, but a rational one too.
Unless I'm wrong in how the Orthodox consider experience with God and knowing God, I just have trouble understanding that point of view.