Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wayside" data-source="post: 666326" data-attributes="member: 8394">Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coming in lateNot at all.  The Humpty Dumpty comment was an allusion to a series of exchanges on reference and speaker's meaning between Keith Donnellan and Allan McKay in The Philosophical Review in the 1960's; a debate which was over, of all things, who has the power, the speaker or the words.  Please don't think I'm being antagonistic.  I know it is easy for tone to get clouded in an all text environment like this, but honestly I am interested in the discussion, not in being right or wrong.Again, not a classics major.  Not an anything major anymore.  I don't see you as attacking me at all.  I am responding to comments like 'the basis of this thread is misguided' and 'I suppose this all depends on whose version of history etc.'  I would say that these are 'juvenile' remarks, but the word might have too many negative connotations for you.  They are just not particularly well thought out, and you havn't given us any information on the superior version of history you subscribe to, or guided the thread into the right, as it is so off course.I don't recall making that assertion.  I was more invested in the idea that, say, more is to be gleaned from a firsthand reading of the real Latin love elegists, Propertius, Catullus, Tibullus, the Sulpicias, or the Mesopotamian poetry written by the Mesopotamians, like Gilgamesh or Jacobson's anthology, than a revisionist like Merlin Stone.You may certainly be right about the Celts, as literature like the Tain bo Culaigne and the Mabinogion was obviously altered by the Christian monks who first had the foresight to write it down.  This does not hold for Latin or Mesopotamian poetry however.  It comes down fairly intact (as intact as millennia old clay tablets can be).Again the with the major thing. I think I've explained this sufficiently.  I still await the actual perspective, assuming there is more to it than 'your perspective could be wrong.'  I will tell you how yours is misguided when I actually see it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.  So far there has only been the 'there are no temple prostitutes only priestesses'  and 'having sex was a sacrament' assertions, which are both wrong.  The Mesopotamians had such temple prostitutes.  One of them seduced Enkidu out of the wild and he later curses her for being the cause of his death.  Sex in this context was certainly not 'sacred' in any sense (even 7 days and 7 nights of it).  As for the temple 'Goddess,' Ishtar, she offers herself to Gilgamesh, and he repudiates her in a very moving speech of lines like "which of your lovers have you loved forever?"  She was, after all, a whore of a goddess.It was actually an argument about intentionality in meaning.  What I just said was a boring semantic argument/distinction.</blockquote>

Verification