What is gained if there is a "Latin American" philosophy or what is lost if there is not?

"Gained" may be an erroneous "we're so special" shtick that more resembles a 1930s "Third Reich la Raza" in which "philosophy" is written as "the protocols of the non-LA raza," aka an infantile gangster psychologism, a la marxism or national socialism, a false dichotomy of "we vs they."   

"Lost" may be nothing so special that it contrives an adolescent yahwehism as a false path to realization.   The parables of Indra and of the tower of Babel may relate:  in both parables some adolescent special superpower shtick occurs, until Indra wises up (teachable) or Babel doesn't.

The superpower Babeling may be externalized:  "Captain Obvious" philosopher notes a special ring that explains/rules all--the tool that treats all problems as the one tool that solves all, and then a world view is built upon and around it.  Typically the tool is a magic answer to what the philosopher was personally bothered about and failed to resolve.  For Marx it was about money, and his mother Henriette Marx was wise:  "Karl should have made capital, not written it."

So up with LA cultures and political history, by all legitimate perspectives; it's a flavor, a subset, not a worldly deification.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_o... is a simple, general, accurate, and helpful guide to how humans tend to develop, with or without requiring 100 years of solitude, 1,000 years of Reich, or "10 Billion Days and 100 Billion Nights" (deemed the greatest Japanese science fiction novel).