/lit/ - Literature

>>11749316
>I see many brilliant thinkers
This doesn't mean anything. Marx could be considered a "brilliant thinker" and yet his ideas ended up being responsible for the deaths of millions.

>b-but that wasn't his fault! That was people intepreting his works!

Exactly, any discerning mind worth its salt would be privy to the sort of impacts their ideas would have. There's a reason why virtually all wisdom traditions teach that one should be cautious with their speech.

In our example, Marx clearly wasn't aware of the rather obvious negative impacts his ideas would create. Why is that? Because he wasn't interested in the holistic application of wisdom; he was interested in his very specific, arcane and arbitrary ideas about reality that even a high schooler can effectively criticise. He was, in many ways, not a wise man; he was a fool, and it cost the lives of millions.

When was the last time you heard about millions perishing in social revolutions led by an ascetic guru? How about the countless Jews who died as a result of the teachings of a taoist sage? How about the ecological destruction wrought by following the soothing wisdom of Tibetan lamas?

Virtually never, because there's a world of difference between rather arcane and masturbatory "philosophy", and the true, practical and timeless wisdom that has been spoken of by virtually ever advanced civilisation since its inception.