Who Killed Homer?

    Hanson and Heath, Classicists from California, co-authored a book called 'Who Killed Homer', which was eventually published in paperback in 2001 by Encounter Books. And before that there was the hard cover version. But the paperback version has additional political intrigue within realm of academia, since these authors were not well received among their peers, due to the pointed rhetoric contained within the paperback book, which you could probably get through the online venders.

And the below outline shows some of the main points within the book:

1. Greek wisdom is not Mediterranean but anti-Mediterranean; Hellenic culture-an idea not predicated on race-is not just different from, but entirely antithetical to any civilization of its own time or space.

2. The demise of Classical learning is both real and quantifiable.

3. Our present generation of Classicists helped to destroy Classical education.

  I feel that there is no way Classical learning will be sustained within the universities of the West, in general, and in America in particular because students do not want to learn these tough languages and the literature that goes along with them. This dismissal of this ancient culture is due to, mainly, the unfamiliarity with the alphas and omegas of the ancient Greek way of writing Why promote an unfamiliar orthography?

  But further than the loss of understand languages, there is a great cultural loss also. While ISIS destroys ancient monuments, the Classicists of this generation have set fire to the manuscripts of the texts that taught a way of thinking that is largely foreign to us because they wanted to keep the loot for themselves, rather than train others to appreciate the Greek contribution to our present crumbling civilization. So if you want to know why education is in a mess right now, I'd suggest this book for your consideration. 

Interpretation

The world of things is made more consumable for those looking for relief through a story. The present set of facts, though, is not the same as a printed version of what is happening. First, the medium and the product are different. And this can only be seen though concrete examples. However, those examples cannot be shown without first establishing that what is being considered now has some importance for interpretation.

First, a story is a narrative of events, where the author has taken what has happened and put them into a series of related points. This is important because it shows the author's view of coherence, which tells us how the author has taken the facts and put them into his story. This coherence further shows the way the author should be taken. The weight of interpretation, then, has shifted toward the author rather than the text.

The intention of the author is open on the page through the coherence he has presented. In this way, one reads the author rather than the story of events. However, this view does not shut out what is been told. It is not so much as finding the author in the text as allowing the author to present his method of coherence or how the source of his story is a way the author shows his will in finding coherence through what he wrote.

This orientation can take a text as the author's way of coherence, which is a process that uncovers the text he wrote. This does not show up as direct comments of the author's purpose, although it could be there, but the method of holding the mirror up to the text so to speak is done by taking the unique intention of the author and using it to shed light on the text. The method is reading for the intention to apply it to the text for insight.

My Belief

I believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Canon

The canon continues to inspire debates about what should be included in such. Two criteria stand out in which to select the elite set of authors and their works. One is a set of moral values that should be learned to carry about what it means to be Western and the other is aesthetic values, which determine how literature should be represented.

These two camps are not necessary opposed to each other, but it could be said to characterize them that the former is static while the latter is dynamic. What is meant is that moral values tend to be elements that are a fixed set of prescriptive rules, while aesthetics ebb and flow with each passing age. Another way of putting it is that moral values are Apollonian while the aesthetic is Dionysian.

However you cut through the body of work that is suggested to be kept from generation to generation, consider that most are chosen because they carry these qualities. And most of these works carry both to instruct as well as to be appreciated. What is idle, though, is disputing the historical validity of the works to some political end. Some of these, especially the recently political, had their stigma die down already.

So the cannon is given to categorization but not based on crafting a code to support an identity group because that is a heretical practice given what you belong to. Also because the canon contains only the most important authors, it is difficult to hold to a canon which ignores these in favor of personal preferences classed by trends. The moral and aesthetic standards of a work shape their placement.  

Without Context

There is enough clarity here to warrant no more help to bring out what is being said in these fragments. But what more help can make you see what is here? They are stronger when left alone.

To be just is to control your conduct according to justice. You expect people to be just, but you are surprised at particular injustices. Injustice keeps happening in the world, since people are unjust.

I feel this given emotion to show how you hurt me. The reason follows from the event and would be out of place to put other feelings where they do not belong.

Loss of control shows where you once had power to affect an outcome. Now the loss can show what made it possible to have the influence over the persons and places once affected.

What can be said is less relevant than what is said. Those sayings have power over all once put in place.

The world of things is wearisome, but then that is all there is.  And the passage of time makes things less relevant but does not erase the fact that they are cared about.