Ancient Literature Discussion (History, Myth, Philosophy &c.)

[Skull]

The notion that pre-Modern cultures did not have such ideological debates is its own form of anachronism.

The notion that a pre-Modern audience was incapable of interpreting what's literally in the text is its own form of anachronism.

:^)

[SpoonyViking]

"The anachronism of language and perspective refers to the usage of current concepts and perspectives to explain and elucidate the historical events and facts."
Some scholars also use the term "presentism", if it helps.

[Deathhappens]

The notion that a pre-Modern audience was incapable of interpreting what's literally in the text is its own form of anachronism.

The notion that a pre-Modern audience would intepret a text the same way as one two and a half thousand years later is its own form of anachronism.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure "piety to the gods over the commands of human kings" is not high on the list of takeaways from Antigone nowadays, for example.

[Five_X]

The notion that a pre-Modern audience would intepret a text the same way as one two and a half thousand years later is its own form of anachronism.

The notion that a pre-Modern audience couldn't intepret a text the same way as one two and a half thousand years later is its own form of anachronism.

Past humans were not aliens. Indeed, we have a great deal of cultural context on the Greeks in particular and a record of interpretations of these very works almost as old as the works themselves. What you're saying is tantamount to believing that it is impossible to extract any culturally-relevant meaning from a text separated from the present reader by an arbitrary gulf of time. Anthropologists and sociologists must immediately resign their posts in disgrace, to say nothing of classicists who have pulled the wool over our eyes for so long.

[Dullahan]

all this talk about sophocles is irrelevant to the genuine question at stake here, which is, as I understand it from the thread, what would a pre-modern audience make of beast's lair user LegalLoliLover [answer in 2000 words or less]

[Five_X]

They, too, probably would have gone off on a tangent about the merits of the Boy Scouts.

[Mattias]

Okay, every time I see Antigone I misread it as Antigonish, and wonder what a 150 yr old ghost story has to do with things.

[Kamera]

Probably demonic possession

[LegalLoliLover]

all this talk about sophocles is irrelevant to the genuine question at stake here, which is, as I understand it from the thread, what would a pre-modern audience make of beast's lair user LegalLoliLover [answer in 2000 words or less]

I was about to say something but nowadays "modern audience" has a very specific connotation.

[Deathhappens]

The notion that a pre-Modern audience couldn't intepret a text the same way as one two and a half thousand years later is its own form of anachronism.

Past humans were not aliens. Indeed, we have a great deal of cultural context on the Greeks in particular and a record of interpretations of these very works almost as old as the works themselves. What you're saying is tantamount to believing that it is impossible to extract any culturally-relevant meaning from a text separated from the present reader by an arbitrary gulf of time. Anthropologists and sociologists must immediately resign their posts in disgrace, to say nothing of classicists who have pulled the wool over our eyes for so long.

Uh... no, that's not what I'm saying at all. We, having the benefit of hindsight, can see things as people 2.5k years ago saw them and acknowledge that as a society we have in part or as a whole evolved past, or at least expanded, that way of thought. They, in turn, interpret their past (through works that reflect it, like Antigone) through the lens of their present manner of thinking. But just like we can only scarcely imagine what humanity in A.D. 5000 will be like (assuming we still exist), so too the ancients would be fundamentally unable to envision the world as we see it today. Not because human nature has changed all that much, but simply because the framework, the context through which we interpret anything and everything is different.

[Five_X]

So you agree that

what lessons we take from them today may be far from what the authors intended them to be

is incorrect, because as I said, we can glean the cultural and authorial context to understand the meaning of a text written outside of living memory, and thereby differentiate past thinking from present thinking such as to understand the complex ways that people in the past interpreted their own societies - which included ideological debate over how said societies should function.

[InsertNameHere]

The notion that pre-Modern cultures did not have such ideological debates is its own form of anachronism.

Fair enough, although it is then most unfortunate that most of said debates were subsequently lost to us. Assuming that they were ever preserved to start with.


Still, my point remains that nobody can escape being products of their time- even people like me who always try and push limits can't just step out of our historical context.
- - - Updated - - -

all this talk about sophocles is irrelevant to the genuine question at stake here, which is, as I understand it from the thread, what would a pre-modern audience make of beast's lair user LegalLoliLover [answer in 2000 words or less]

I think their most likely response would be "what's a loli"?

[InsertNameHere]

Maybe, but then we'd have to go into the life experiences that developed this sense, as well as what one would learn from history and fiction with more realistic moral (or lack thereof) systems. It's like how knights nominally follow a code of chivalry, but as Charlemagne, as portrayed in Fate/extella, found out, there is nothing chivalric about being a knight. Similarly, Boy Scouts also follow a similar code of conduct, but like knights, it is shown to be equally bullshit... Obviously, less corpses involved because, unlike with knights, Boy Scouts are not a military organization. I say this remembering when I was in the Boy Scouts, and I and another found a walking stick. Not an artificial one, obviously, but a natural stick found on a trail that could be used for the purposes of hiking and the like.

Because we both found it first, and because I insisted on having it, saying that his seniority didn't matter, the older Scout said that I could have it in exchange for solving what he believed to be a math problem outside of my intellectual scope. I solved it. In response, he deliberately broke the stick in half, so that I couldn't get it either. In other words, he tried to use that math question, not as a test but as a means of lording over me. I would not be lorded over by getting the question or dropping the issue altogether. When I complained about it to who I assumed would be a fair mediator, I was forced into dinner dish cleaning duty, because the older Scout was obviously a higher rank than me, or else I wouldn't have breakfast the next morning. Breakfast sucked (that probably wasn't deliberate because everyone had the same meal, but some idiots didn't realize that damp air makes soggy pancakes).

I quit the next week. Obviously, Charlie stuck with being an un-chivalric knight and eventually earned, through blood and conquest, the title of Emperor. I thought that, based on my math skills, but I deserved that stick, but it turned that, as Thrawn would say: Who deserves what is irrelevant. What matters is who has power.

I forgot to say this earlier: the Boy Scouts actually do have a quasi-militaristic background. It is not a coincidence that the Scouting Movement's founder was not only a Lieutenant-General of the British Empire, but also derived much of their activities from the military reconnaissance training that he had personally overseen in the Second Boer War. So apparently you missed one of the most important parts in their code: the hierarchy is always right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...n_Baden-Powell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_for_Boys
It literally says in their seminal work "bees form a model community, for they respect their Queen and kill their unemployed". Even by the standards of early 20th century Britain, that's incredibly classist.

(Oh, and Charlemagne was in EXTELLA Link, not EXTELLA. You should also clarify whether you mean the Saber or the Ruler, because I can't tell from your rambling.)

And finally, the origins of that sense are unimportant to me. All that matters is that it is mine, and I have no intention of giving it up.

[LegalLoliLover]

I don't specify by class. I say either Charlie or Karl.

[Deathhappens]

So you agree that



is incorrect, because as I said, we can glean the cultural and authorial context to understand the meaning of a text written outside of living memory, and thereby differentiate past thinking from present thinking such as to understand the complex ways that people in the past interpreted their own societies - which included ideological debate over how said societies should function.

You misinterpret what I meant by that. It's not that we can't understand what lessons the author meant to impart, it's that we don't, or won't, implicitly receive these lessons from a surface reading (or watching, since we're talking about a play), because we simply don't think the same way.

[LegalLoliLover]

A funny joke about Journey to the West, if you understand English and Chinese. As you know, Journey to the West is very loosely based on the historical Xuanzang's travels, so most of the countries that he visits are fictional. One of those fictional countries is the country of 滅法国 (simplified Chinese would be 灭法国) Miefaguo or the Miefa Kingdom. However, the actual modern Chinese naming of France is 法国 Faguo. As you might know from something, like Demon Slayer, in both Chinese and Japanese 滅 mie in Chinese and metsu in Japanese means to destroy. Therefore, read out of context, it totally sounds like some Chinese Buddhist monks were out to destroy France in that story arc. Alternatively, it now feels less unrealistic in F/GO for Sanzang to overshoot and go to Egypt where things could have been worse, and she went to France.

[Nanashi(kari)]

In the beginning I thought the legend of King Arthur was English.
Later I learnt it was Welsh.
Now I realize it is in fact French just loosely based on Welsh tales.

[LegalLoliLover]

The funny thing is that I learned that from a Fate doujin.

[Skull]

Later I learnt it was Welsh.

Strictly speaking that isn't a 100% accurate picture since we know Arthurian tales existed orally in other parts of Britain for example the "Llyfr Taliesin​" is a Welsh translation of a Cumbric poet whose poetry is lost in its native language and was only preserved for future generations by the efforts of Welsh monks.

[Nanashi(kari)]

Cumbric, Welsh. Who cares? They are all brit*ns. Besides, I bet Cumbric is a modern term.