主题：【整理】西方历史与学术的由来——关于西方历史的真假问题 -- 疯狂的蚂蚁

作者已经找不到了，不过应该是对历史有一定研究的人，说不定是文科生~~

虽不是为历史而作，但确实可以认为是历史著作。

因此，说汉时才有不准确。

讲述的是英国人将只能含有一二个字母的号称是古代埃及纸草碎片拼成一页的过程，有英国大英博物馆的现场表演，看起来非常滑稽。

前段时间与一朋友讨论明史最后不欢而散，不过也说不定是好事，因为让我知道了这人原来是个睚眦必报的腹黑之人，居然为了正常的争论而记仇。讨论的焦点是他每次都拿个体说事，而我向来不认同这点，我看事情都是看一个阶层，以及在当时环境下背后的利益争斗。虽然很多事情都有不停的反复，但是看历史问题一定要把握要点：时间，地点，人物，起因经过结果，以某些人物为代表的特定阶层的利益取向，最后就是，什么时代干什么样的事，千万别把自己现在的思想套用到历史人物上去评判。

Just comment on the OP's assumption that Gibon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". OP thought this book was purely fabricated by the author Gibon himself -- this assumption is totally wrong. Gibon's work is more or less similar to 资治通鉴, which is pretty much a rewriting of earlier historical records and materials.

And I wonder whoever made the assumption did not read "Decline and Fall", at least not seriously. Gibon has sourced many of his writing in very detailed footnotes from all these earlier historical works and materials.

To twist your own observation of the world, and belittle others -- even this "other" is the West who caused so much misery in recent decades, centuries -- is pointless and dangerious to yourself.

Looking carefully, the ruling class of the East and West in ancient times are not that different from each other, virture of vice.

And the cultural achievements, history writing, are not that different from each other.

It is not the age of East vs. West any longer.

WAKE UP!

The main problem is that when OP tried to talk about history, it is very unprofessional, almost purely 伪科学

Every single accusation is at best full of factually and logical errors, if not outright wrong.

The desire to challenge Western ideaological hegemony is understandable and even appreciative, but go about using methods that may discredit yourself is silly.

西方文艺复兴之前祖宗们给他们留下的历史遗产真比我们要匮乏多了

this assumption is wrong. You need to travel to Italy to see for yourself.

To be pround of our own heritage does not mean we need to ignore other's. Don't have to do that.

Obviously you are not trained in history study, and knows almost nothing of the professionals achievements of the past several hundred years. The history study as a social science has come a long way, as the scholars has been working hard to get there. Most of the time real history works and publications are not fancy of easy to read, therefore you may never get to know them. But it is not like what you thought.

作为网帖必然有不少谬误啦

This is the absolutely wrong attitude to study history. The devil is in details, especially in history study. Why? Because of the passing of time and loss of historical evidence and knowledge as time goes by, serious scholars need to be even more dilligent and careful to unearth what happened once upon a time and how things were.

The 谬误 are not to be tolerated at all in serious history study.

文中谈到的西方伪经问题，等等，我不懂，但感觉作者可能有说话太满的倾向。

我个人觉得，目前的历史观最大的问题是欧洲中心论或西方中心论，这个倒确实需要我们努力去克服的——所造成的危害是对中国过往历史的裁剪以符合西方道路，自觉不自觉地引导中国未来发展道路以迎合西方。

至于西方文化历史和科学精神中确实有用的地方，还是需要大力吸收的。

也就是说，不必指望在这些材料的真伪性问题上下大功夫再然后树立中国的“正统”，相反，完全可以不拘泥于这些材料，但在人类历史的基本道路上，逐步树立中国历史的正常与正统。这是一种观念上的突破，所根本要求的是，还是一个国家在国际力量上的优势。

设想，当中国重回世界之颠，你觉得目前有关中国历史的基本叙事框架将如何改写呢

想起一个笑话，说某某牌子酱油远销海外，深受各国人民欢迎，其实也就是华人用而已。

文章出发点可以理解，可水平太小儿科了，适得其反。我非常怀疑作者连一本西方历史的原著都没有读过，呵呵。

“一部二十四史大半是假的，所谓实录之类也大半是假的。但是，如果因为大半是假的就不读了，那就是形而上学。不读，靠什么来了解历史呢?反过来，一切信以为真，书上的每句话，都被当做证实历史的信条，那就是历史唯心论了。正确的态度是用马克思主义的立场、观点和方法，分析它，批判它。把被颠倒的历史颠倒过来。”