I fundamentally mistrust all history books. It is an irrational paranoia...

>But is history even possible?
This is essentially the entire core of Baudrillard's Simulation theory. It's a chicken and egg problem, in an almost inverted causal order. The more history we know, the more we have to doubt the Real. Given enough effort, the entire enterprise of science and history will know everything, down to the location of atoms every millisecond that ever passed. It will be a better model of reality because you can play it like a video tape, fast-forward or rewind as desired, unlike actual reality which move forward at a steady rate.

Already, what is True according to the Simulation of History is more important than whatever 'actually' happened in some particular Reality lost downstream in the current of Time.

Does he argue that eventually the simulation of history will be superceded by the reality of history? Or is the simulation of history necessary in terms of utility.

Very confused. Will certainly read him. Where to start?

read "a very short introduction to history"

a certain healthy paranoia is not entirely misplaced, but you shouldn't go overboard.

>I constantly doubt any historian's capacity for objectivity.

well, no historian *can* be perfectly objective; but that doesn't mean you should "fundamentally mistrust all history books." at least, that seems like an over-reaction to me. but who knows?

the historians will tell you you're crazy -- but of course they would, wouldn't they?

Yes it may have been slightly exaggerated for effect, but I do have a hard time buying it. Caligula, for example. That name has meaning. It signifies a the successlr to Tiberius and a tyrant and a madman and an incestual insomniac who appointed his horse to some executive office. Yet the only fact about Caligula is that there are more or less no extant records from his reign. How can someone form an opinion on the man? How can we say anything at all about him without first saying, "in my opinion, Caligula was X." And why should I spend any amount of time reading a book about Caligula?

Well, there were contemporaneous, or near contemporaneous histories about Caligula. That's the starting point.

That "very short introduction" book walks through the kinds of evidence historians typically consider.

But I have to sign off now. Cheers.

I will look into it. Thanks for the rec.

Good night

Google 'Anatoly Fomenko

No, you are entirely correct. Historians are STEMspergs by proxy and systematizers. Trust in a systematizer is trust that a knife will sever your spine by some Geist in the night.

>shouldn't go overboard
Why?

Because, clinging to that mentality, you'll be stuck in a oroborros with no opportunity to grow as an intellectual.

>growing is good
Fuck off, humanist.

Fuck YOUUUU

Objectivity is a spook.

How events were perceived is more important than what actually happened.

>This is wrong and stupid, right?

Kind of. Historians are crafting an argument and trying to convince you to see things the same way but they aren't out to trick you. I suppose it helps to understand what the main debates/points of contention are on a specific topic before you read a historical monograph about it but most serious academics will lay these out during their argument. The only books you should mistrust are trashy pop histories like Beevor where the author tends to gloss over the wider historiography surrounding the period.

I feel you. Read a dozen history books and here the same exact event described a dozen different ways. Then take a class on the subject and think I'm gonna be a badass, but the Prof's interpretation is different from all these other authors, and they use a different book, but I read the sources and find they cite the books I read in that book, so the information somehow has become filtered and lost in the transition to academia.

Any theory of history books you would recommend?

>This is wrong and stupid, right?

You probably understand that by reading books you do not have any factual knowledge, for you are not instructed in the historic method nor you are able to check on historic records in the first place.
That said, it is possible to have an informed opinion over history, and it is possible to see through lies and propaganda or the past, the problem is that to do so is required true intellectual rigor and dedication that has to last for a lifetime.

So there's that: you either trust historians, who may be wrong, or you devote your life to the study of the past and its historic sources.
Also notice that this applies to pretty much everything that is mediated by humans.

They are tricking you. They're crafting up a mythology to institutionalize.
>muh historiography
As if that is trustworthy.
No it isn't
>LOL IF I THINK REALLY HARD ILL FIND THE 'T'RUTH!!!
Holy shit you are stupid.
There is no past, so there is no history.

Rude, unhelpful, scientologist, and gay.

Isn't this like the essence of Pynchon's oeuvre?