1. Why do we start with the Greeks and not the Mesopotamians?

The Indians certainly could

But Sumerian literature is completely irrelevant to the rest of the western canon. Read it if you are curious, but you won't miss too much if you don't.

Not enough Mesopotamian works, they cant translate half of Ashurbanipal's library because some retard junbled the order. So read Gilgamesh as it is the only 'literature' work we have.

But study them senpai, amazing pieces of history

Tons and tons of Sumerian and Akkadian literature have survived - Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, Enûma Eliš, Atra-Hasis, etc.

Nonsense. Is the Old Testament "completely irrelevant to the rest of the western canon"? Because the Old Testament is recycled Semitic myths from Mesopotamia.

>But Sumerian literature is completely irrelevant
I wouldn't say that it was "completely". Maybe remotely.

Hey, does anyone know of a good book on ancient Anatolian cultures? I was just reading up on the Urartian kingdoms and want to know more

So read the Old Testament. How many writers do you think have read Sumerian literature?

Why does it matters what writers read? Look to be original and pursue knowledge and self improvement
You cannot be intellectual by deeming writings from a historical period 'irrelevant' because DFW didnt read them

>But Sumerian literature is completely irrelevant to the rest of the western canon. Read it if you are curious, but you won't miss too much if you don't.

mew? it's a foundation of some of the bible texts

As I said, read them if you are curious, but you don't have to feel obligated to do it. The biggest reason why it's best to start with the Greeks is that the vast majority of the important poets studied them and make a lot of references to their works. I'm not talking DFW, I'm talking Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe etc.

Interesting. Do you think the Indians have as rich a tradition though? I mean, they seemed kind of content intellectually to follow a path of non-intellectualism, while the Greeks went out of their way to go down as many paths as possible to map out the entire landscape from first principles. Certainly the Indians have produced some interesting works mapping out potential paths into the inner world, but I don't think that it really compares or has as much depth of character, wit, intelligence etc.

by the same logic you should read sumerians if you want to read the bible

Yes, but the bible isn't literature

Are you kidding?

It's an amalgamation of laws, genealogical tables and lore. Some of what's supposed to be historical facts could be somewhat accurate, but it is mostly a fiction.

Troll 5/10

It doesn't matter if what is said there is fiction or not, what matters is how people regard it. Nobody studies the Bible as literature and most of the people who read and study it believe it is the word of God.
Also you have to look at the scope of it. Its authors meant it to be read as accurate history and for a moralizing purpose. Would you consider Plato's dialogues to be literature because there are some people talking in a fictional setting?

Yes I would.

Myth was supposed to be real at one point too.

>Nobody studies the Bible as literature
Nonsense.

>most of the people who read and study it believe
Most people believe UFOs are real. Who gives a fuck what 'most people' believe.

>Its authors meant it to be read as accurate history and for a moralizing purpose.
Who knows what its authors meant. Some of it could have been written as a founding origin myth for nationalistic purposes. We just don't know. In terms of genre, it's not all that different from Homer and Virgil.

>Would you consider Plato's dialogues to be literature because there are some people talking in a fictional setting?
You could argue that Plato's dialogues are a form of philosophical literature, yes.

By the way, not all literature is fictional. You know that, right?

butters?? could it be?

>Yes I would.
So where does it stop? Does literature equate fiction for you? The problem is that there is no way of knowing what is true and what is fiction when looking at history and even myths.
Let's look at Herodotus' histories and Shakespeare's historical plays. Both have a part of history and a part of fiction in them, and yet one of them is considered a historian, while the other is a writer. Because they wanted to accomplish different things with their works.

>Myth was supposed to be real at one point too.
So why isn't the Bible real? Can you prove it to the people who believe it is?

>So why isn't the Bible real?
Because some of it is. Just like some Moors married some Venetians.

I keep mindful of who is telling the history and what their sources are. It's all kind of grey area you're left wondering about. I don't want to talk about the unlikelihood of a god right now though.

Yup. Hi, how are you.

>I mean, they seemed kind of content intellectually to follow a path of non-intellectualism, while the Greeks went out of their way to go down as many paths as possible to map out the entire landscape from first principles.
It seems to me like you're flanderizing some 3000 years of philosophical development, in favor of a couple hundred. Sure "Indian thought" is intrinsically linked to spiritual self-search (and so is European thought), but there's a lot more to it.

aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka

Start with the Chaldean Empire and read with the language of the birds, then continue with 2033 with your empire that was built according to Dante's De Monarchia and has Solresol as the de facto language.

>Most people believe UFOs are real. Who gives a fuck what 'most people' believe.
Because books are made for people to read.
>In terms of genre, it's not all that different from Homer and Virgil.
Homer is different. His books were never considered sacred and he didn't have that big of an influence on Greek religion as you may think. He also never preached anything in them, just told some tales that he probably heard from somewhere in a beautiful way. As for Virgil, he has nothing religious in him.
>You could argue that Plato's dialogues are a form of philosophical literature, yes.
And yet calling Plato a writer of literature would mean nothing.
>not all literature is fictional
Yes, and not all fiction is literature either.

When is one "finished with the Greeks"?

Circumventing this discussion shitshow, I'll just say

1. There isn't that much pre-Greek content around. What survives isn't nearly as influential, and is really only interesting as leading into Greek works, rather than standing on its own. Gilgamesh isn't a great read, but is helpful in leading to Homer and epic poetry as a form.

2. Rome. Loads more content than the era of Greek supremacy. Virgil's Aeneid is a direct "sequel" to Homer. Lots of great Roman-era (if often Greek-speaking) historians, e.g., Polybius, Livy, Tacitus, Plutarch, Sallust. The philosophy is considered weaker (and Latin lit is generally thought less poetic than Greek), but is a great reflection of contemporary culture. Good humor too (eg Catullus) and check out Cicero for rhetoric, philosophy, and a lot of epistolary history.

Because Greek civilization is often seen as the archetype of the "Western World".

Mesopotamia is sandniggers.

Pretty much this. This board is less about literature in general and more about philosophy major college dropouts stroking their massive retard egos and sense of elitism.

I believe OP is implying that this very view is close-minded and we should strive for a more globally informed community.

Sandniggers is the correct answers, though.

>Gilgamesh isn't a great read
lolwhat

Well sure, I agree with you, but 98% of the faggots here come off as white supremacist cucks that only concern themselves with European/American stuff.

I can't tell you how many times I've come here looking for recommendations for Asian literature and my threads have just been memed to death.

So recommending that beginners read the works that all the important authors knew by heart is elitism for you? Just fuck off back to r/books and stop talking shit about one of the few good aspects that this board has.

>Butthurt philosophy major detected

Get a job you existential panty waste.

Who said anything about philosophy you disgusting pleb?

I'll bet my left nut that you don't even know who the plebeians were, faggot.

Enter with the Egyptians?

Oh shit, you got me user. How can you be so erudite?

Figured as much. KYS.

Do you honestly enjoy Gilgamesh as much as Homer or Virgil or Ovid? I would be genuinely surprised at that. It's not BAD, but it pales in comparison.

certainly more than virgil's aeneid which i still can't force myself to read past 7th book and ~like iliad/odyssey, albeit those have a more developed story

i also absolutely loved its poetry

Kill yourself you illiterate trash.

>great reflection of contemporary culture.
How is Roman lit a reflection and not Greek lit?

Mostly because the Greeks and Romans still have an incredible impact on every part of modern culture.

Also, the Greeks give us a view of the other cultures at the time, it's mostly Greek historians that are our written sources for ancient civilizations.

Cyropaedia by Xenophon, for example, is a really important and interesting look at Cyrus of the Persian Empire.

Make me, you pudgy little armchair badass.