Intellectualism is an ideology.
Literally every single "intellectual" in history was rich. That really makes you think, doesn't it? It's funny that these rich people think that they've transcended the world. They believe that they're above it all, looking down. In reality, they're just living in a bubble, completely disconnected from reality. This explains why communism always failed, for example, and why hippie culture brought with it the degeneration of civilization.
>The C average complaint club
Where's the lie, though?
correct, they also only work within the realms of ideology itself meaning just like the ideology, the intellectual is also flawed and deceptive
heres a hint: intellectual-ISM
>Literally every single "intellectual" in history was rich
that's a ridiculous claim
>implying you can't be poor and live in a bubble
>what is the medieval period
range ban america when?
>Literally every single "intellectual" in history was rich.
Karl Marx?
Nietzsche?
>focusing on the materialism aspect of that claim when its not the most important or relevant detail
Tippy Tom?
Are you implying that you don't live in a bubble?
Truth is that reality houses both bubbles.
>thinking monks on an rocky island in the atlantic, subject to tidal waves and earthquakes, and intermittent supplies are rich
you opened with the rich bit. you're either a dummy who doesn't know how to lose or a dummy who doesn't know why you lost. have fun with that.
Why are you discarding parts of your own argument?
thats not me senpai
>This explains why communism always failed, for example, and why hippie culture brought with it the degeneration of civilization.
none of these had to due with intellectualism though. Communists purged intellectuals.
10/10 retard post through and through btw
>LET'S NOT FOCUS WHERE HOW I'M COMPLETELY WRONG BUT WHERE I'M PARTIALLY RIGHT
Let's not, I'd like to stick with how you're wrong about "Literally every single "intellectual" in history was rich". Because that's patently wrong and I'd like you grill you a while longer about how you arrived at being this wrong?
>I'M
but thats WRONG
i dont agree with the rich/poor part, i only agree that intellectuals are in themselves an ideology who only work within other ideologies
the rich/poor argument doesnt matter because the rich/poor argument IS ideology in itself as well
>muh paradigm shifts
lulz that's so fucking weak when you then want to disavow more material impacts the next sentence. would you consider monkeys to have ideology since they learn how money works too?
i dont have a complicated argument nor am i the person who made this thread
i dont know what youre angry about or what youre arguing at me
I'm not angry at you, I'm laughing at how dumb you are. Your terms are all fucked up because your idea of ideology includes "monkeys have ideology". I'd personally consider them to have a capacity to understand trade, but I don't think ideology is necessary to trade. You need to stop being sloppy or people will tell you about it.
learn to contextualize
>>LET'S NOT FOCUS WHERE HOW I'M COMPLETELY WRONG BUT WHERE I'M PARTIALLY RIGHT
again, really? that's your problem in your research method.
You're right about that, but you should do it yourself. Contextualize the opponent and the discussion you are having. You can ignore posters.
Admit the error if you made it and move on. Satan is a sticky figure, and an accuser.
this isn't how syllogisms work, unfortunately.
>tfw Hirohito will never ban all posters who make less than $80k a year