As Raymond Martin noted, historians can make objective judgments about relative causal importance. He constructs a philosophical statement showing that counterfactuals enable us to assess relative causal importance. To justify the counterfactual statement itself, historians usually intuitively try to find for a comparison some other real situation which is in some important respect similar to the possible situation reflected in the counterfactual claim. The question then becomes, "How do we know that the actual historical situation, the counterfactual situations, and the (...) real comparison situations are similar in relevant aspects?" As Martin did, we must look at real cases of historical thinking to make a philosophical statement, which in turn leads to a new set of questions and so on. At some stage a statement that gives substantial support to the Marxist claim that history is a scientifically analyzable, law-governed process will be reached. (shrink)

There has been almost no real dialogue between Soviet Marxist and Western philosophers of history. In dealing with Western historical texts, Soviet authors usually turn to the relationship between Western philosophers of history and various general philosophical and analytical trends. There are also differences in the exact significance of vocabulary used by Soviet and Western scholars. Soviet authors tend to pay a lot of attention to the social nature and ideological functions of critical philosophy of history, while basing their investigations (...) on the materialist understanding of history. The work of V. 1. Lenin serves as a methodological example of a Marxist approach to non-Marxist philosophy, and is the origin of the tendency of most Soviet authors to reject the general methodological principles of Western authors, but at the same time to acknowledge that many interesting and important problems of historical knowledge are raised in Western writings. (shrink)

Two types of lying in history and in politics are the "direct lie" method and the "blank pages" method. "Direct lying" is morally more blameworthy than the "blank pages" method. Distortions on the level of semi-theoretical, general, historical statements are ethically more justifiable than distortions on the level of concrete, factual, empirical statements. Historians are morally responsible for lying even when their false account is due to a lack of talent, or when they know the truth but do not make (...) it publicly known, especially if they are one of the few who has access to direct evidence. Historians are possibly excepted from moral responsibility for lying in the case of sanctions imposed upon them, including the martyr and hostage situations, where either their own or their family's property or life are threatened. Sanctions force some historians into an escapist strategy, such that they attempt to study other topics where their cognitive activities are not so heavily restricted by taboos. (shrink)