/lit/ - Literature

>>23237856
The unheroic nature of heroes is a means to invite the listener to conclude that even the greatest amongst men are nothing in comparison to the wanton power of the gods. Often times this is why there is a such complex interplay of recurring themes within these stories based around fate, fortune (as in luck), arete (a demonstration of personal excellence), pathos (an internal suffering toward something greater), and hubris (essentially, denying the gods of their deference). These are then themes amongst the ancients that may, arguably, suggest these as the "fundamental" and inescapable aspects which turn and lubricate the "gears" of life.

>>22966586
>Spending everyday studying languages for about 8 hours
Anon, are you literally me?

>>22768960
>How many women are in classical languages classes?
In my experience, the gender disparity is pretty even in classics. There might even be a tiny bit more foids than men.

>>22765783
>A man was willing to die because of the dishonour he felt about not having his personal excellence in warfare recognized in 7th century BC.
>A man will blow his brains out because he cant cut his dick off and pretend he's a women in 2023 A.D.

The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

for anyone in this thread retarded enough to think that ancient civilisations were race-blind

"The name ‘Ethiopia’ etymologically stems from the Greek ‘Αἰθιοπία’ / ‘Aithiops’ a compound word, derived from ‘αἴθω, aitho’ (“I burn”) and ‘ὤψ, ops’ (“face”), directly translating to “burnt-face.” Evidently, the Greeks believed that the Africans’ dark complexion was significant enough to name their entire country after it — “Land of the Burnt Faces.”

“Too black a hue marks the coward; witness Egyptians and Ethiopians […] Those whose eyes are excessively black are cowardly […] Those with very woolly hair are cowardly; this applies to the Ethiopians”
— Physiognomica, Aristotle (300 BC)

“After inspecting the wall near the rampart in Britain… just as he [Serverus] was wondering what omen would present itself, [he was met by] an Ethiopian from a military unit […] Severus in a rage order that the man be removed from his sight, troubled as he was by the man’s ominous color”
— Historia Augusta, Authorship Disputed (4th Century AD)

“The peoples of Asia, in turn, are more servile than those of Europe […] they will therefore tolerate despotic rule without any complaint”
— Politics, Aristotle (4th Century BC)

“For the King of Asia, not content with the wealth that he had already, but hoping to enslave Europe as well”
— Funeral Oration, Lysias (392 BC)

>>20964828
>Why didn't Achilles quit being so angry?

Because Agamemnon violated the principle of Xenia (guest-friendship) and by doing so dishonoured Achilles.

>Why didn't Agamemnon compromise?

It was the king's prerogative to take and distribute what was plundered in war, unless otherwise stated.
There are a number of instances in the Greeks' history where soldiers need to be explicitly permitted, by the king, to "loot" cities and surrounding areas and possess the property therein.
There was an underlying assumption that the loot or property was the kings by right of conquest (which has also been the case in wars generally until very recently).
So to answer your question: Technically Achilles was not entitled to the priestess.
One could also say that there's arguably a grey area between a king's general privilege vs. a warrior's potential right to be honoured by the king for their personal excellence (arete) and brave conduct in battle.
It's up to the reader to come to their own conclusions.

>Why start a war over literally one lass?

It was a violation of the principle of Xenia, as above. In this instance, it was Menelaus who was offended.
There also seemed to be a desire of finding an excuse to go to war against the Trojans.
Also, I guess one could argue that the gods caused it after the judgement of Paris, but that probably isn't a very satisfying answer.

>>19551945
You WILL write out all the verb forms and like it

>>19431273
The world is everything that is the case

>>18499362
The soul and depth of Euripides's characters are laid out too abruptly and nothing is left for the reader to understand. Pentheus is arrogant, MEdea is envious, Hippolytus is virtuous. It's very simple and not at all dynamic. The god's condemn them for the excesses of their character. Contrast them with a character like Sophocles's Antigone: A character whose greatest strength and fault, which ultimately leads to her death, is her uncompromising personality and the unwillingness to back down on her principles. The gods do not interfere. Antigone is driven not by some divine power, but the ardent belief that she is morally right. Human agency is the arbiter and determiner of fate on Sophocles's stage.

>without gods, without oracles, a philosopher has no place. - Damascius
Friendly reminder to be a Platonist is to be a polytheist. Simple as.

Christian platonism? A contradiction in terms.

>>17132812
Someone in a prestigious Classics program has probably unironically shit this out of their tiny academia riddled brain. God save the Classics.

>>16827924
non lego

>>16645413
>inherently anti-religion

>>16568905
‘Now, what conditions are always present when anything is produced? Clearly, an initial impulse grows and reaches the second stage and then the third stage out of the second, finally (at the third stage) presenting percipient beings with something to perceive. This then is the process of change and alteration to which everything owes its birth. A thing exists as such so long as it is stable, but when it changes its essential state it is completely destroyed.’ So, my friends, haven’t we now classified and numbered all forms of motion, except two?
CLINIAS: Which two?
ATHENIAN: My dear chap, they are the two which constitute the real
purpose of every question we’ve asked.
CLINIAS: Try to be more explicit.
ATHENIAN: What we really had in view was soul, wasn’t it?
CLINIAS: Certainly
ATHENIAN: The one kind of motion is that which is permanently capable
of moving other things but not itself; the other is permanently capable
of moving both itself and other things by processes of combination and
separation, increase and diminution, generation and destruction. Let these
stand as two further distinct types in our complete list of motions.
CLINIAS: Agreed.
ATHENIAN: So we shall put ninth the kind which always imparts motion
to something else and is itself changed by another thing. Then there’s the
motion that moves both itself and other things, suitable for all active and
passive processes and accurately termed the source of change and motion
in all things that exist. I suppose we’ll call that the tenth.
CLINIAS: Certainly.
ATHENIAN: Now which of our (roughly) ten motions should we be justified in singling out as the most powerful and radically effective?
CLINIAS: We can’t resist the conclusion that the motion which can generate
itself is infinitely superior, and all the others are inferior to it.
ATHENIAN: Well said! So shouldn’t we correct one or two inaccuracies
in the points we’ve just made?
CLINIAS: What sort of inaccuracy do you mean?
ATHENIAN: It wasn’t quite right to call that motion the ‘tenth’.
CLINIAS: Why not?
ATHENIAN: It can be shown to be first, in ancestry as well as in power;
the next kind—although oddly enough a moment ago we called it ‘ninth’—
we’ll put second.
CLINIAS: What are you getting at?

>>16513776
Please post your full shelf :>

Damn I just realized philosophy was completed by the Platonists... They solved it all. They gave accounts for philosophy and its purpose. They gave undeniable proofs of the superiority and truths of Platonist epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics etc. Was the continuation of philosophy merely the works of men that had too much pride to just accept these facts and merely live the life of a philosopher, and instead just had to try and come up with a system of their own?

Tell me... Why shouldn't I just study the Platonists, grow in virtue, achieve the great silence, and worship the gods for the rest of my life? All else seems like vanity.

>>16380261
This is the only possible world.

>>16369127
All my favorite authors and philosophers were sexist, misogynist and racist.

>>16369626
>stops writing the summa as he realizes most of his most beloved influences came from Neoplatonism and not Aristotle
he probably also realized the the Corpus Areopagitum were pseudepigrapha, but kept that information to himself, and instead went into intellectual despair ceased all philosophy and probably died from depression three years later

Which modern philosopher(s) most returned to a pre-Christian way of thinking and being? Spinoza? Nietzsche? Heidegger?

I'm still on the Greeks and intend to completely skip the Christians so I'd like to hear what /lit/ thinks about the modern philosophers in this regard.

>ywn live in Athens during the Age of Pericles.

So I just learned that monotheism as a term did not exist until the debates between Palamas and Barlaam. What Christians had used; up until then, for their doctrine of one God was "monarchia", which basically means sole cause or one first principle. But I've read a few pagan works of philosophy and the idea that they did not believe in one first principle is nonsense, it is pretty much what started the entire western philosophical tradition.

So basically 2000 years of supposed victorious Christian dialectics against polytheism have been against a straw man? Are Christian arguments against polytheism basically that of a Christian philosopher arguing against a fictitious polytheist peon? Or could anyone point me to any European pre-Christian philosophical work that does not espouse the doctrine of monarchia?