Philosophical points in a coherent system with general axioms is one thing; if the individual thinking is shaped by character that is flawed, then the axioms are more questionable. E.g., Marx loved to drink and let others work on his behalf (his impoverished mother, his colleague F. Engels, his maid), seriously disliked the authority of his father, and his infantile leftism therewith got much of his axiomization and prediction wrong (idyllic primitives, increasing interchangeability of labor, necessity of violence (early Marx)). Instead of intellectual idolatry, aka unquestioning acceptance of axioms, it is often helpful, a la Scharfstein and Johnson, to note the highly-related psychologism in many such thinkings.
If the axioms are not widely accepted, then a force of character, e.g. Nietzsche, posits some notions of herd and overman, the death of God, and to the degree that such personal axioms fit the Zeitgeist, they have degrees of mass appeal. However, noting e.g. the loss of father, Friedrich's lifelong search for father-figure (Schopenhauer, Wagner, and then his own sockpuppet version of Zarathustra), and the coming-of-age of Friedrich as the self-discovered Christ and Buddha overman or ~ what many boys normally learn by association with a loving father, it is more accurate and efficient to simply note Maslow's wisdom re how a person learns to master life's levels (concurrently as well as in new areas of endeavor), rather than to find nuggets of wisdom by strong-willed overcoming, in effect re-inventing the wheel of self-realization rather than finding a clearer path already trod.