Jake
14.6K posts
Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey may be the most pro-Western civilization film Hollywood has made in decades - not because it flatters the Greeks, but because it understands civilization as a moral achievement rather than an ethnic possession. The identitarian far-left and far-right share a premise: that the Western canon is ethnic property. One side condemns it on that basis; the other guards it on the same basis. Nolan refuses the premise, populating Homer's world with various identities while treating the story with absolute seriousness. That’s not a repudiation of the canon but evidence of its triumph: Homer can be inhabited by, and speak to, anyone. The film’s deepest commitment is to individual moral agency. Odysseus cannot hide behind Greece, military orders, or victory. His choices are his own, and so is his guilt. No collective cause dissolves individual moral responsibility; his final heroism lies not in conquest, but atonement. That principle extends to hospitality: treat the stranger as you would wish to be treated. When the Greeks violate it, they become the barbarians they fear. Penelope's devastating realization - "You're the people from the sea" - underscores that the enemies of civilization are sometimes its self-appointed defenders, exempting themselves from the principles they claim to uphold. This is Western civilization at its best - not an ethnicity or a triumphalist myth, but a tradition built around the dignity of the individual, moral responsibility, and atonement. And a civilization strong enough to preserve stories that judge its own heroes remains a civilization worth defending.
The encounter between the shade of Achilles (= the Iliad) and Odysseus ( = the Odyssey) in the Underworld scene stages the most explicit contrast between the two epics’ world-views; to some, it’s among the most important moments in the Odyssey. That Nolan omits it is bewildering.
Most of us in Europe: the Italian, British, French and even Scandinavians have identified with Troy for 1000 to more than 2000 years. But everyone shocked that Agamemnon’s army is seen in a negative light for the movie?
Screw it.. here’s the full Cyclops scene
SOLUTION To solve this one, we go--as we often do--to the Elements. All we do is circumscribe a circle around the right triangle EDZ, and the rest falls into place. Circumscribe a circle about the right triangle EZD. (Eucl. IV.5) Since EZD is a right triangle, the hypotenuse ED is the diameter, and the circle passes through all three points of the triangle EZD. (Eucl. IV.5 Cor.) Since ED is the diameter, let it now be 120P, and thus arc EZD is 180°. And therefore, angle EZD = 90°. (Eucl. III.20) Therefore, with respect to circle ABG, the ratio of 120:ED can be used to determine the arc of chords EZ and DZ. So: angle DEZ = arc (DZ * 120/ED) / 2; angle EDZ = arc (EZ * 120/ED) / 2. For example, since it was found originally that: EZ = 130 DZ = 48; ED = 138.5784976; Then: angle EZD = arc (ED * 120/ED) /2 = arc (138.5784976 * 120/138.5784976) /2 = 180 / 2 = 90° angle DEZ = arc (DZ * 120/ED) / 2 = arc (48* 120/138.5784976) / 2 = 40°31'53" / 2 = 20°15'57" angle EDZ = arc (EZ * 120/ED) / 2 = arc (130* 120/138.5784976) / 2 = 139°28'5" / 2 = 69°44'3" Therefore, angle EDZ is given.
Classical Education - Quadrivium: Solve this Almagest Problem In Book I.13 of the Almagest, Ptolemy is sludging through the proofs for the geometrical theorem known as Menelaus’ theorem. This theorem is part of the groundwork necessary for spherical astronomy. As is typical for Ptolemy, in his proofs he does not spell out every little step. He expects the student to be able to fill in a lot of the geometry. Sometimes it is manageable and sometimes it is quite difficult. In this proof he breezes over one step that he apparently finds obvious that I was only able to figure out a year after initially giving up on and moving on from: how a certain angle in a triangle is “given.” So I want to see who here can show exactly how angle EDZ is given using the same classical geometry Ptolemy is using. The attached images show Fig. I.13 with the angle in question. Also is the same figure marked pointing out the angle. And lastly is the whole lemma as it is found in the Almagest. Neither Google, nor LLMs, nor even the ancient commentaries will be able to do this for you. You gotta know the geometry. ***Helpful Notes*** - By “given,” think of it as "determinate" based on prior givens or geometrical propositions. For example: if two sides of a right triangle are given, the third side is also given (Pythagorean theorem). Or if two angles in a triangle are given, the remaining angle is also given, since the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles. - A "chord" is the straight line joining the endpoints of an arc. So the chord of arc GB is the straight line GB. “Crd arc 2GA” means the chord belonging to an arc twice GA. It does not mean “twice the line GA.” In the Almagest the diameter of a circle is assumed as 120 parts, where “parts” is the standard unit of measurement we use. The circle itself is assumed as 360 degrees. So, since the diameter bisects the circle and joins the two endpoints of either semicircular arc, each arc is 180 degrees. That is: Chord arc 180° = 120P. The following values were determined previously and will be needed. EZ = 130P(arts) DZ = 48P ED = 138.5784976P In the post under this I will even provide the demonstration of the entire lemma up to the point where I want you to jump in. How exactly does angle EDZ become given? Show all steps of your proof.
An adaptation of the Odyssey, Movie: The return. Shooting a traditional arrow through 12 consecutive targets is incredibly difficult, as the arrow's natural flex (the "archer's paradox") makes striking all 12 holes without deflecting nearly impossible for a human. Ralph Fiennes plays the weary king Odysseus.
The pettiness of people complaining that The Odyssey lacks 'realistic' casting. My dude, it has a one-eyed monster who sucks soldiers' heads like lollipops and a witch who strokes men's heads until they turn into pigs. Realism isn't the point.
