Paul Karl Feyerabend ensues to be the sort of out of the ordinary irreverent philosopher, which is plenty of contradictions and triggers his readers’ awkwardness, although this present work would rather be classified as a short-tempered and tense juxtaposition of small essays which, in its best, could had a better impact, if its author wouldn’t deplete his munitions of straw man representations of science, philosophy and arts. I assume that the very point it makes and, at least, his work, would be of great value would be much more satisfying, if the author would never classify his colleges and readers as academic scroungers; its own work is itself contradictory, since he knocks out everyone who may sustain a different point, and doesn’t itself admit criticism, because he is not, as we says, a reasonable writer – instead, it befalls rational and logical comprehension of world, giving up on his fallacious attempts to detreat upon – and not from – others what we actually does, just because he isn’t reasonable – this point transforms his own position in a critique to the very intervention and intercultural dialogue, founded in the sign of variety – a multiplicity which, I admit, till the present moment, not only is not guaranteed, owing to the fact it hasn’t been accomplished in western and specially European history, but also in nowadays. Even so, this standpoint, being unable to account for debate and consisting in a coarctation of human action and consideration of his acts, would create a meta-historical writer, which tries to keep itself beyond bias – a foregone conclusion he implicitly tries to deny he upholds, indorsing this outlook in his criticisms to Popper and other authors (which I would better appreciate, if there wasn’t so many ad hominins! Indeed, this could never be achieved, since all we born in a cultural-biased world vision; in fact, he is trying to make his point, without considering others and obliterating the very culture path he eventually was trying to stand up for. As a result, we can’t affirm his ideas for we advise readers that doing anything – even denying his argumentation – from reflection upon his words would be impervious! But since we are citizens and our pollical institutions couldn’t stand as democratic, as long we can’t adopt our characteristically societal disparity from other ethnicities – the democratic world we envisaged in Greek culture and, as relativistic may agree, wouldn’t be superior to any other nor inferior, and, as a result, it consists in an idiosyncrasy that shall never be eliminated (the obliteration of memories would cause an aberration – the dilapidation and annihilation of our patrimonial fountainheads as humans, the mistreatment to the right for memory, because we must foment diversity and recognize it from our culture, and not as an stranger talking as a prophet, like some stylistic twists in Feyerabend’s book. Consequently, the problem is – and Feyerabend adopts a pattern with we couldn’t refuse it is the stain of his very own culture, since it considers problems –, therefore, how to foment diversity in world culture backdrop, without a reliance in homogeneous and inhuman methodology (and that is one of the greatest lessons we could learn about the view Paul Feyerabend gives us, although we denies: that is, in the treatment of our very own culture and social organization, we must seek for a methodology which allows diversity and respect to human diversity: and it only could be done if we take the time we need to reflect and try to surpass the intolerable standardization and velocity of our society: instead, we must not neglect science as something, which was to do which our western culture and it is important was well as other cultural traditions, but instead think how the democratization of education could be less dogmatic and more critical; in fact, Paul Feyerabend cannot forget our history and that his knowledge came from a tradition would had been lost, if it didn’t pass to us; so if we don’t give or foresee to provide education for our children, democratically – reserving it just for a minority as Feyerabend suggests in is argumentative path – in fact, we thinks education couldn’t extend his limits to the citizens that born as members of a western tradition (I agree that we can't destroy autochthonous structures, a point which I totally agree with), considering intellectuals and educated people as a minority –, it would eventually create more permeable citizens (that is, people which born in western culture) without tools to think for themselves and – throwing light to this truism – to consider Feyerabend words and its very point – however, the author disrepairs his culture and rather thinks that we must assume that other cultures are superior to our owns (they, in fact, have the same value) and that we must take some practices from them, instead of recognizing that this very solution was the one likewise we criticized (we denies we should share our cultural practises with others, because it would be a imperialist view; I agree we should be aware to the imperialism western tries to adopt, but I don't agree that we should forget our culture; I think that balance is required); so, our schools could be improved, but we should consider that reading, learning, intellectual work, which Paul Feyerabend had done, are taken from the very nature of our culture and we shall never try to forget this. So, nonetheless, my balance is that the indignation with honest efforts and intellectuals – they aren’t all of the same stipend, since, as all workers, they could be considered a contribuition to our society in general as a rich culture, as the others and, therefore, we shall never forget nothing and, specially, never try to foreshadow our history as a dynamical practice. So, at least, his very disrespectful remarks to all universities are, at best, very disgraceful, due to the fact that the contemporary world would need to conciliate his views, not within a rational system closed upon itself, but rather with critical thought.
