>start with the Greeks
>not the Sumerians
have a go lads:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_literature
I've been saying this.
By ignoring the iron age you prove yourself to be a plebeian and committing a crime as well!
What's necessary other than Gilgamesh? Western lit refrences the pantheon a lot more than Marduk.
It's nice to see the Sumerians are becoming more popular. But let's not kid ourselves. Cuniform isn't much in terms of "literature".
Part of that might be that it was written on clay. Part of it might have been that it was far more complicated compared to the later Phoenician alphabet.
>>7656499
Why are you pretending to be of sufficient expertise to review Cuneiform literature when you can't even spell Cuneiform?
Fuck off you pseudiot
>>7655990
The idea of "starting with the Greeks" is made in reference to learning the western literary/philosophical tradition from the ground up.
Aquinas speaks of Aristotle speaks of Plato speaks of Homer and so on.
Naturally, if one were attempting to learn another literary/philosophical tradition (there are of course several), then one might begin with some sort of non-Greek or other.
Or, if one were specializing in, say, Mesopotamian influence on Old Testament mythology, they might read the Sumerians.
It's all a question of degree and what will help lay the foundations for chunks of literature/ideas you desire to learn. It is not a question of who has the best literature ever omg. That's for God to know. Nobody has the language grasp or totality of knowledge necessary to make even a cursory comparison across traditions as diverse as Indo-Aryan, Islamic, western, Chinese, Indo-Chinese etc.
>>7656527
Excellent post.
This is also why nobody "starts with the Egyptians." It's not an issue of chronology, but in importance in influencing later thought.
