Epistemology of History Discussion

[benczeb90]

Superior, like slave trade? (No problems with it, right?) And hunting down christians? Oh yeah! Way way better than the inquisition in the dark ages right? Higher culture right there! No doubt the model for every other one. Ave Caesar!
(Though i've no problems with these things you say while playing the game, because it's a game. Talking about it is different.)

[Riothamus]

''If it is plausible that ideology will in general serve as a mask for self-interest, then it is a natural presumption that intellectuals, in interpreting history or formulating policy, will tend to adopt an elitist position, condemning popular movements and mass participation in decision making, and emphasizing rather the necessity for supervision by those who possess the knowledge and understanding that is required (so they claim) to manage society and control social change.'' Norm Chomskiy

[juanplay]

True Riothamus, there are some intellectuals that regardless of the research and a lack of curiosity and self criticism serve the Elite and/or the State. These are Gramci´s organic intellectuals, people that legitimize and suport the structure of powe because they themselves were created by that same power in order to provide it with an identity, a set of ideologies, arguments for existence and the means to control the population. Needless to say, we must be open to the fact that people cannot be classified in two extremes (in this case organic vs non organic intellectuals), instead there are various degrees of allegiance, dependence and rejection of the structure of power in a given society, and usually any intellectual has a mix of those three.