5 ms·

From wiktionary: > 1. The body of all written works. > 2. The collected creative writing of a nation, people, group or culture. > 3. (usually preceded by the

From wiktionary: > 1. The body of all written works. > 2. The collected creative writing of a nation, people, group or culture. > 3. (usually preceded by the) All the papers, treatises etc. published in academic journals on a particular subject. > 4. Written fiction of a high standard. So it sounds like you're basically describing definition (1). I make this judgement because "this tastes good" is not creative or fictional writing, which are key points in definitions (2) and (4).

not2b 4y ago
So if 4. is the definition, the Epic of Gilgamesh is first, because it's in a different class than what came before. But if 1. is the definition, the article is clearly right as there are older works.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Epic of Gilgamesh is first Probably not. If 90% of classical Greek dramatic literature is lost, we can safely assume at the very minimum at least that amount of literature contemporary to Gilgamesh is also lost. There are probably at least 9 other works written around the same time, a little before or after, that would compete with its title as "first." And it is also doubtful something as complex as Gilgamesh arouse out of the blue. There would have been a progression of literature increasing in complexity leading up to it, that is lost. Thus Gilgamesh is the earliest high literature still in existence. But there definitely had to be earlier high literature, and no judgements can be made on whether that earlier lost contemporary high literature was any better or any worse than Gilgamesh.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - 988747 4y ago
    "still in existence" is kind of implied, no? We can theorize that there were some previous works, but Gilgamesh is the oldest we can actually read.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > "still in existence" is kind of implied, no? Definitely not. Being first does not remotely imply existence. The first gospels have long deteriorated into dust, and the earliest versions are copies of copies of copies. Further, it is astronomically unlikely that the earliest version of Gilgamesh in existence is the original. > We can theorize that there were some previous works, but Gilgamesh is the oldest we can actually read. There are quite a large number of works that can be no longer be read.[1] This does not mean they're literature any less than works that can still be read. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_literary_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_literary_work
  - jdmichal 4y ago
    I think the assumption that literature complexity must have been incremental is flawed. Complex oral tradition could have led directly to complex story-telling literature. All it would take is someone writing it down.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > I think the assumption that literature complexity must have been incremental is flawed. That is fine, but my assumption is supported by the history of literature. We don't see anything as complex as Dostoyevski's Crime and Punishment or Twain's Huckleberry Finn in 1000BC. > Complex oral tradition could have led directly to complex story-telling literature. All it would take is someone writing it down. Are there any examples of "complex" oral tradition that stand in contrast to simpler oral traditions? Could we compare the early Christian oral tradition with, say, Hopi oral tradition to determine which is more or less complex? I don't think this makes a lot of sense, but I would entertain supporting argument.
      - shortsightedsid 4y ago
        Not sure what are simple oral traditions, but the Vedas [1] are oral transmitted. To preserve meaning there is elaborate chanting techniques. They have been written down recently, however, to really learn them, one needs to chant. They are pretty complex for sure. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas
        Maursault 4y ago
        If the Vedas oral tradition "led directly to complex story-telling literature," you may have a fair point, but with only the example of the Vedas having a complex oral tradition, this (as a candidate for counter-example) isn't exactly clear. But I'm almost certain there's tons of complex stories in mine and especially in other cultures of which I am not aware. If there wasn't, maybe I could give you a hand.
        4y ago
  - not2b 4y ago
    I meant oldest surviving literature, so we agree.
- randomcarbloke 4y ago
  It's both, 1 refers to the collective written word, but any one piece would not necessarily constitute "a work of literature". A takeaway menu for example is not under definition 4 but if accompanied by other texts could be an example of the written works of our species.
Maursault 4y ago
I agree, but note the definitions get progressively more exclusive.

not2b 4y ago

So if 4. is the definition, the Epic of Gilgamesh is first, because it's in a different class than what came before. But if 1. is the definition, the article is clearly right as there are older works.

Maursault 4y ago
> Epic of Gilgamesh is first Probably not. If 90% of classical Greek dramatic literature is lost, we can safely assume at the very minimum at least that amount of literature contemporary to Gilgamesh is also lost. There are probably at least 9 other works written around the same time, a little before or after, that would compete with its title as "first." And it is also doubtful something as complex as Gilgamesh arouse out of the blue. There would have been a progression of literature increasing in complexity leading up to it, that is lost. Thus Gilgamesh is the earliest high literature still in existence. But there definitely had to be earlier high literature, and no judgements can be made on whether that earlier lost contemporary high literature was any better or any worse than Gilgamesh.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 988747 4y ago
  "still in existence" is kind of implied, no? We can theorize that there were some previous works, but Gilgamesh is the oldest we can actually read.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > "still in existence" is kind of implied, no? Definitely not. Being first does not remotely imply existence. The first gospels have long deteriorated into dust, and the earliest versions are copies of copies of copies. Further, it is astronomically unlikely that the earliest version of Gilgamesh in existence is the original. > We can theorize that there were some previous works, but Gilgamesh is the oldest we can actually read. There are quite a large number of works that can be no longer be read.[1] This does not mean they're literature any less than works that can still be read. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_literary_work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_literary_work
- jdmichal 4y ago
  I think the assumption that literature complexity must have been incremental is flawed. Complex oral tradition could have led directly to complex story-telling literature. All it would take is someone writing it down.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > I think the assumption that literature complexity must have been incremental is flawed. That is fine, but my assumption is supported by the history of literature. We don't see anything as complex as Dostoyevski's Crime and Punishment or Twain's Huckleberry Finn in 1000BC. > Complex oral tradition could have led directly to complex story-telling literature. All it would take is someone writing it down. Are there any examples of "complex" oral tradition that stand in contrast to simpler oral traditions? Could we compare the early Christian oral tradition with, say, Hopi oral tradition to determine which is more or less complex? I don't think this makes a lot of sense, but I would entertain supporting argument.
    - shortsightedsid 4y ago
      Not sure what are simple oral traditions, but the Vedas [1] are oral transmitted. To preserve meaning there is elaborate chanting techniques. They have been written down recently, however, to really learn them, one needs to chant. They are pretty complex for sure. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas
      - Maursault 4y ago
        If the Vedas oral tradition "led directly to complex story-telling literature," you may have a fair point, but with only the example of the Vedas having a complex oral tradition, this (as a candidate for counter-example) isn't exactly clear. But I'm almost certain there's tons of complex stories in mine and especially in other cultures of which I am not aware. If there wasn't, maybe I could give you a hand.
        4y ago
- not2b 4y ago
  I meant oldest surviving literature, so we agree.
randomcarbloke 4y ago
It's both, 1 refers to the collective written word, but any one piece would not necessarily constitute "a work of literature". A takeaway menu for example is not under definition 4 but if accompanied by other texts could be an example of the written works of our species.

Maursault 4y ago

I agree, but note the definitions get progressively more exclusive.