Random Thoughts Thread

[asterism42]

-something about prisms idk

[Lace]

How far did you get in UNIEL Spin, you didn't even tell me.

[Frostyvale]

Oh yes, did you ever face off against Loli King?

[Spinach]

Oh yes, did you ever face off against Loli King?

I did!

- - - Updated - - -

How far did you get in UNIEL Spin, you didn't even tell me.

One off top 8

[Lace]

And I even gave you all my energy

[Frostyvale]

つ ◕_◕ ༽つ TAKE MY ENERGY EE-SAMA ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

- - - Updated - - -

but he never ever ever does

Ripperoni in Pepperoni C9

[Lace]

Wait, one off top 8 is actually really good

well done, son

[Mooncake]

Shoutouts to Nachos and Spin, door holders of the century

[Spinach]

This is my calling

- - - Updated - - -

It's also my calling as well

[Seika]

Hi, thread, I had some random thoughts, and then spent an hour reading things to do with them and continuing to have them, and I was still writing them down in this window because that's where I started, and now I'm going to click the post button anyway.


18-20+ are a clear red herring; 22-24 are a/the process. No singular turning point. Priam, not Agamemnon. Older man = not new? Agamemnon's basically totally gone - is this new? Co-operation cross-camps = novelty? Is 9 too far, when he passes beyond countenance or is it still reasonable? So much divine intervention in 24. Important that Priam does bring gifts, as commanded and as Ag. promised, but more important that he begs & reasons w/ Akhilleus.
This develops over the course of 24: initial exchanges mention solely the ransom but both immortal and mortal sides move onto words and emotions - esp. mercy & grief & pity - as much as mostly-concrete (but are they really?) kleos & gera. Do we take this as repudiation of '"The" "Heroic" "Code"' and its - albeit complex - materialism? (I love that all three words can be reasonably sarc-quoted here). (I think that the answer to this rhetorical question can't be straightforwardly yes: we continue to observe all the rituals, at least).

Zeus has faith in Akhilleus: the second-favoured. (Aias by transitive property?)

οὐ γναμπτός (41) Akhilleus - compare ἀδάμαστος Haides?; mercy is acquired by warming the thymos such that it softens - ἰαίνω @321. (But also and often ὀρίνω).

ἔλεος: .44, .174, .207, .301, .309, .332, 500s below, prolly others. (But, at perhaps the critical point, οἰκτείρω for 516)
ἐνδυκέως ἱκέτεω πεφιδήσεται ἀνδρός: .158, formulae, bear in mind for .287, .338, .438, .570, .708
ἀκηδέες: .526, .554 (interesting juxtaposition), others.

aidōs has its usual significance; I don't think we need fear a rejection of it in favour of some wishy-washy guilt.

503-6:
ἀλλ᾽ αἰδεῖο θεοὺς Ἀχιλεῦ, αὐτόν τ᾽ ἐλέησον
μνησάμενος σοῦ πατρός: ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐλεεινότερός περ,
ἔτλην δ᾽ οἷ᾽ οὔ πώ τις ἐπιχθόνιος βροτὸς ἄλλος,
ἀνδρὸς παιδοφόνοιο ποτὶ στόμα χεῖρ᾽ ὀρέγεσθαι.
(Aaaaaah, Homer's so good. That comparative, and παιδοφόνος - what a word).

525-6:
ὡς γὰρ ἐπεκλώσαντο θεοὶ δειλοῖσι βροτοῖσι
ζώειν ἀχνυμένοις: αὐτοὶ δέ τ᾽ ἀκηδέες εἰσί.
This where that insipid stuff about mortals being better than gods comes from, doesn't it?


.569-70 shows Akhilleus still in rebellion, still outside order. That indicative μή ἐάσω is very intimidating, and its meaning is clarified later @585-6 w/ formulaic reference calling back to these lines. This is so late in the poem that I don't think we can call this fully resolved: at the least, it still lurks close beneath the surface.

Final glimpses of Akhilleus:
αὐτός τε μένω καὶ λαὸν ἐρύκω (656: commander, restrainer, displacer of Ag.)
αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς εὗδε μυχῷ κλισίης ἐϋπήκτου:
τῷ δὲ Βρισηῒς παρελέξατο καλλιπάρῃος. (657-8: at rest, in love, w/ slave/wife (this is v. important and I wish it were more recognised).).

Andromakhe's line at 739 is fascinating (again compare οὐ γὰρ μείλιχος ἔσκε πατὴρ τεὸς with ἀμείλιχος Haides).

(758-9)
τῷ ἴκελος ὅν τ᾽ ἀργυρότοξος Ἀπόλλων
οἷς ἀγανοῖσι βέλεσσιν ἐποιχόμενος κατέπεφνεν
Mmmm, paradox.

[Leftovers]

[2Bad]

Aaaaaah, Homer's so good.

If he's so good, how did he get the date of the wars with Wilusha so horribly wrong? Checkmate classicists.

[Spinach]

Hi, thread, I had some random thoughts, and then spent an hour reading things to do with them and continuing to have them, and I was still writing them down in this window because that's where I started, and now I'm going to click the post button anyway.


18-20+ are a clear red herring; 22-24 are a/the process. No singular turning point. Priam, not Agamemnon. Older man = not new? Agamemnon's basically totally gone - is this new? Co-operation cross-camps = novelty? Is 9 too far, when he passes beyond countenance or is it still reasonable? So much divine intervention in 24. Important that Priam does bring gifts, as commanded and as Ag. promised, but more important that he begs & reasons w/ Akhilleus.
This develops over the course of 24: initial exchanges mention solely the ransom but both immortal and mortal sides move onto words and emotions - esp. mercy & grief & pity - as much as mostly-concrete (but are they really?) kleos & gera. Do we take this as repudiation of '"The" "Heroic" "Code"' and its - albeit complex - materialism? (I love that all three words can be reasonably sarc-quoted here). (I think that the answer to this rhetorical question can't be straightforwardly yes: we continue to observe all the rituals, at least).

Zeus has faith in Akhilleus: the second-favoured. (Aias by transitive property?)

οὐ γναμπτός (41) Akhilleus - compare ἀδάμαστος Haides?; mercy is acquired by warming the thymos such that it softens - ἰαίνω @321. (But also and often ὀρίνω).

ἔλεος: .44, .174, .207, .301, .309, .332, 500s below, prolly others. (But, at perhaps the critical point, οἰκτείρω for 516)
ἐνδυκέως ἱκέτεω πεφιδήσεται ἀνδρός: .158, formulae, bear in mind for .287, .338, .438, .570, .708
ἀκηδέες: .526, .554 (interesting juxtaposition), others.

aidōs has its usual significance; I don't think we need fear a rejection of it in favour of some wishy-washy guilt.

503-6:
ἀλλ᾽ αἰδεῖο θεοὺς Ἀχιλεῦ, αὐτόν τ᾽ ἐλέησον
μνησάμενος σοῦ πατρός: ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐλεεινότερός περ,
ἔτλην δ᾽ οἷ᾽ οὔ πώ τις ἐπιχθόνιος βροτὸς ἄλλος,
ἀνδρὸς παιδοφόνοιο ποτὶ στόμα χεῖρ᾽ ὀρέγεσθαι.
(Aaaaaah, Homer's so good. That comparative, and παιδοφόνος - what a word).

525-6:
ὡς γὰρ ἐπεκλώσαντο θεοὶ δειλοῖσι βροτοῖσι
ζώειν ἀχνυμένοις: αὐτοὶ δέ τ᾽ ἀκηδέες εἰσί.
This where that insipid stuff about mortals being better than gods comes from, doesn't it?


.569-70 shows Akhilleus still in rebellion, still outside order. That indicative μή ἐάσω is very intimidating, and its meaning is clarified later @585-6 w/ formulaic reference calling back to these lines. This is so late in the poem that I don't think we can call this fully resolved: at the least, it still lurks close beneath the surface.

Final glimpses of Akhilleus:
αὐτός τε μένω καὶ λαὸν ἐρύκω (656: commander, restrainer, displacer of Ag.)
αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς εὗδε μυχῷ κλισίης ἐϋπήκτου:
τῷ δὲ Βρισηῒς παρελέξατο καλλιπάρῃος. (657-8: at rest, in love, w/ slave/wife (this is v. important and I wish it were more recognised).).

Andromakhe's line at 739 is fascinating (again compare οὐ γὰρ μείλιχος ἔσκε πατὴρ τεὸς with ἀμείλιχος Haides).

(758-9)
τῷ ἴκελος ὅν τ᾽ ἀργυρότοξος Ἀπόλλων
οἷς ἀγανοῖσι βέλεσσιν ἐποιχόμενος κατέπεφνεν
Mmmm, paradox.

Tldr

[Seika]

If he's so good, how did he get the date of the wars with Wilusha so horribly wrong? Checkmate classicists.

Homer never goes into the question of dates: those are other authors.

[Frostyvale]

pls rember that wen u feel scare or frigten
never forget ttimes wen u feeled happy


wen day is dark alway rember happy day

- - - Updated - - -

Or How I Learned to Love Infinite Series Calculus

[2Bad]

Homer never goes into the question of dates: those are other authors.

He defines it as "one generation before the collapse of the palaces" does he not? And directly attributes the long war for causing the collapse due to the absence of the troops sparking revolutions or something.

[Frostyvale]

[Lace]

[Leftovers]

Sometimes we're okay.

[Seika]

He defines it as "one generation before the collapse of the palaces" does he not? And directly attributes the long war for causing the collapse due to the absence of the troops sparking revolutions or something.

That rings no bells (and sounds out of Homer's style). If you can actually dig it up, I'd like to look at the context, but it sounds more to me like a conflation with Thucydides:

ἐπεὶ καὶ μετὰ τὰ Τρωικὰ ἡ Ἑλλὰς ἔτι μετανίστατό τε καὶ κατῳκίζετο, ὥστε μὴ ἡσυχάσασαν αὐξηθῆναι. ἥ τε γὰρ ἀναχώρησις τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐξ Ἰλίου χρονία γενομένη πολλὰ ἐνεόχμωσε, καὶ στάσεις ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ὡς ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐγίγνοντο, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἐκπίπτοντες τὰς πόλεις ἔκτιζον.

Since even after the Trojan War, Greece was still at its migrations and its settlements, so that it was never peaceable enough to prosper. This was the result of the Greeks' long-delayed return causing political upheaval, and revolutions occurred in nearly every one of the cities; those cast out by these colonised their own cities.