>>10852353>don't you see flaws in the pedagogical style of modern books?A good amount. Some more than others
>all of them look the same, there is something wrong, they are soulless structured data aimed to fit with the class syllabusI don't know about class-oriented textbooks, specially up to high school, since I never used mine that much, and they probably differ from country to country. But when you get out of high school, your textbooks will have kind of a "free" spirit to them, where you can just navigate through the knowledge by yourself. About the books feeling soulless, I get where you're coming from. Older stuff are usually approached in an utilitarian way in science, being just some stuff that you need to know to actually study science (whatever is being studied in a certain field right now). Given how far science has gone since the greeks, you're meant to just learn all the stuff that we already know (euclidean geometry, basic cytology, electromagnetism, and so on) as quick as possible so you can move to all the interesting things that are being studied right now, and that's where find exciting and soulful content. Of course, you can still appreciate the beauty of old works of great scientists, I wish more people would to that, but these works just aren't practical for learning.
>do you thiunk is autistic to read History directly from Herotodus?No. There's nothing wrong with reading ancient and medieval historians. What I meant is that there would be no point in looking for the original sources, like Leonardo's notebooks and official state documents of the italian city-states if you want to learn about the Italian Renaissance when guys like Burckhardt already looked that up and put it all together in their books. Like in science, reading from the original sources would be a really nice experience, but wouldn't be practical if you want to learn as much as you can about the Renaissance. On other hand, I think textbooks are really stupid for humanities.
