Do you think we'll be able to preserve the Iliad for another 3000 years?

Do you think we'll be able to preserve the Iliad for another 3000 years?

Yes

I'd imagine so, unless there's some sort of apocalypse.

yes.

why should we?

Sure. Just throw a Fagles copy in a buried time capsule with some silica packets. Put a big rock over it to mark the spot. Done.

>faggles

it's a better question whether recent masterpieces will survive and for how long. Like what happens to TS Eliot, Joyce, and Gaddis? Will people still be impressed by Yeats and Goethe in 3000 years? Do Pynchon's critiques of America fade into the background? Surely Kant and Hegel have secured their legacy by virtue of just completing their arduous intellectual tasks.

These people and their works are products of their place. Once the place is gone, what they have to say becomes nearly irrelevant. The Greeks are better/different because their stories were the first, and addressed universal concerns of man besides.

Pic, it's you.

>Fagles
Have faglesfags literally never read another translation? How could you possibly be ignorant about the quality when there is so much scholarship on Homer

no one will care about the iliad in 3000 years

it will be too sexist and racist for them

we're not going to be able to preserve humanity for more than 500 more years, so probably not

They'll probably be digitally archived somewhere, of interest only to some specialists in academia.

>we
>Implying you've done anything to preserve the Iliad

This. Even two hundred years past, who has actually read Goethe? Students and autists. Now compare to the billions who have watched Friends, or Batman.

>These people and their works are products of their place. Once the place is gone, what they have to say becomes nearly irrelevant.
No you moron, how did you get here and why do you think that opinion has any value?

What an ugly greasy runt

I searched google and found pics of your dad on Veeky Forums and decided to stay. The opinion has value because it is true. Art is a product of its time and place. This is how we classify works. No fine artist in 2017 would try to imitate Picasso and say he is making something new. Same for music, or philosophy.

Can you tell me with a straight face that you value the work of Homer -- that it is more relevant to you and your experience in 2017 -- over, say, Veeky Forums culture or the Internet? No, and fuck you for trying.

There are millions of copies of it.
>Too big to fail

I'm more curious what works of our time will be around in 3000 years. I think anything that's lasted more than 500 years will be around forever. But what, from our own time, will last in the centuries to come? I'm not sure we can say.

They can't even scrub the George Soros "collaborating with the Nazis was the best time of my life" 60 minutes interview when they're trying, data retention and multiplication is too powerful now. It's no longer a matter of the laborious copy of manuscripts by hand.

My diary desu

maybe some of the works we consider "classics" were the Big Bang Theory of their day

The Seinfeld perhaps, the Big Bang Theory perhaps not.

>being this ugly
>trying to make your shitmug a reaction pic
The ABSOLUTE state of litposters