Fictional but realistic
Explaining this project can be challenging.
On one hand, my articles are close to 100% historically accurate. Mostly every word that comes out of the mouth of a historical figure is something they actually said, just with a more readable translation than you'd find in a book.
At the same time, I do not actually own a device to resurrect historical figures, and these conversations did not actually happen. So in that sense, it is fictional.
But calling it fictional feels like it downplays the accuracy and value of what you're reading. A book summary isn't fiction, and this is just a much better version of a book summary.
At the same time, a new reader landing on a post can get very confused if I don't put this disclaimer. They might think this is a real interview that happened in the past. So I need some way to tell them that this interview did not happen, but it's so accurate to this person's thoughts and ideas that it could have realistically happened.
So for now, I have settled for "fictional but realistic". I don't like it. But it's good enough for now. Over time as more people get familiar with the site, perhaps I can remove this belittling disclaimer.
What is it that you actually do?
I read books written by important historical figures, deconstruct their thoughts and ideas, find the most interesting parts, then synthesize those into a dialogue.
What kinds of topics do you cover?
Mostly anything in the realm of liberal arts and social sciences. You can expect to see philosophy, history, economics, psychology, political science, and things like that.
One of the goals of this project is to make foundational knowledge more accessible. All of our modern political and economic thought is based on centuries of work by great thinkers. It would benefit us all to understand where our modern ideas came from.
This sure would be a cool podcast...