A philosopher by nature is legally insane. But not in the psychiatric sense, which rationalists often try to impose as a label on philosophical thought that deconstructs their "tablets." Stigmatizing the bearer of uncomfortable thoughts is the hallmark of rationalists.

A philosopher is legally insane because it is impossible to impute guilt for the freedom of their thought. Nietzsche is not to blame for Hitler's distorted interpretation of him. Free philosophical thought should not "look back" to see how it will resonate in the souls of rationalists, because they will inevitably turn it into a "straw man" that serves their pragmatic goals.

If a philosopher acquires "responsibility" for freely expressed truth, then they are no longer a philosopher but an ideologue. Philosophy itself is not communicative; it merely states what is, without any intention to explain or prove anything to anyone. But if such an intention exists, then philosophy is absent — it is, again, pure ideology.

In this sense, Marx is not a philosopher but a pure ideologue... He is accountable, and he can be held to account... But what can you take from a philosopher who sits in a barrel or does not try to step into the same river twice?

°●●•○°▪︎°▪︎•○°°▪︎

My rebuttal:

What is I see in your dissertation has elements of contradictory supposition, bearing in mind this is only criticism of my own. But because I see what you define as a philosopher being legally insane is that supposition, which alter my course of seeing. What I did not agree with are your reasons behind the genius of your idea. I do see that uncomfortable thoughts made by pragmatists in defiling the causes of one philosophy or making example of the philosopher by perjury. Why not just deem "all philosopher are absurdists" to qualify the same name of said criticism. My point here is: unless you are acting as a critic to inform the philosopher of his or own vices? If you do that, you are equalizing their idea by dismissal. Through that dismissal does not make the argument nor the arguer any less valid than a fallacy if or when committed. It is there that dogmas become the ideologue's domain. My point here is that it is a philosopher that has skill to, whose ideas stand against the truth which tests the ideologue. Fallacies are prevalent in logic. A philosophical end. The philosopher is to identify the error.

In conclusion: marx is a genius whose ideas are highly complex but set our understanding of how our means to perform as societal creatures, the social influx depends on capitalist alienation which his theory will adorn. To outright deny Marx is a strech of intellectual dishonesty.

- Marco