Questions & Answers

  • Wafa A AlKhadra

    Wafa A AlKhadra asked in Humanities 7th Dec '16:

    For a long time, history has been built on what historians consider “facts” or “grand” narratives. In the “postmodern” world all forms of narrative, including history itself, are perceived as largely personal, subjective, and even fictive? Where do you draw the line between history and fiction?

    Vladimir Somov replied 7th Dec '16:

    The text, written by a professional historian, has certain characteristics:
    1. The historian always refers to the source of information
    2. Historian always reflexives about his cognitive capabilities. Historian always questiones the accuracy of his conclusions. So rarely uses affirmative expression ( "I know"), but uses expressions such as "likely", "sources suggest," etc.
    3. The historian always considers himself a member of the scientific corporation and takes into account the achievements of his colleagues. That is why he often says from "the third person" - "we believe."
    4. There is a professional ethics of historian. He can not invent anything "by itself". This factor is most difficult to be controled.
    Professionally made historical research, as a rule, is based on these principles. The rest can be political, social or commercial order. In form it may be historical research. According to the content - an intentional / unintentional falsification.

    View all replies to this question
  • asked in Social Sciences 26th Sep '16:

    Why in your opinion does man seek conflict?.

    Vladimir Somov replied 26th Sep '16:

    The main difference is that during World War II, the Nazis tried to destroy entire nations.

    View all replies to this question
  • asked in Humanities 4th Nov '13:

    During recent weeks, references were made in the British press regarding Karl Marx teachings. Why would Karl Marx teachings still be relevant after the collapse of Soviet Union, in your opinion?

    Vladimir Somov replied 28th Nov '13:

    6 points for Marxism

    My reply is a short resume numbering 6 main reasons for Marxism to be still relevant despite the fact of the Soviet Union collapse

    1. Marx's doctrine is the quintessence of human aspiration to a rational and just world order.

    2. The collapse of the Soviet Union didn’t demonstrate the fallacy of the theory, but it demonstrated the errors in its realization.

    3. The Soviet Union with Marxism in practice had shown the way out of the economic crisis - the planning of the economy and limiting consumption.

    4. Society of Marxist type forms a special type of personality that is orientated on collectivist values ​​that become a priority in a crisis situation.

    5. Soviet victory in World War II is the proof of the effectiveness of the Marxist approach to the organization of society.

    6. Today's crisis of social and economic development makes it relevant to appeal to the positive practice of Marxism.

    View all replies to this question
Reset my details