/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16726272]

For me, it's Euterpe

[Anonymous No.16726273]

>>16726272
CALLIOPE BABY <3333333
XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO

[Anonymous No.16726280]

>>16726272

[Anonymous No.16726289]

>>16726280
Imagine getting head in that thing
cash money baby

[Anonymous No.16726398]

>>16726272
Fuck Calliope
Marry Clio
Kill Terpschore
The specific attributes of each muse to a genre is a late antiquity meme, though. They're just the Muses, and they just inspire art.

[Anonymous No.16726602]

>>16726272
O Thalia cover not the world's cruelty but dress it up and make me laugh at it.

[Anonymous No.16726674]

>>16726272
Mnemosyne easily

[Anonymous No.16726679]

>>16726272
>Urania
Call me a brainlet, but how the fuck did ancient people know so much about astronomy, and could recognize planets and shit, even though they had nothing but the naked eye? Are there any books/documents explaining in detail how they kept track of time and the stars with little to no technology?
>inb4 "they didn't, historians made that up/aliens taught them"
>inb4 "they had nothing better to do so they just looked at the sky"
I'm serious, I'm really interested in the history of how sciences were developed. They had to come from somewhere, before they blew the fuck up in terms of complexity. In school they just teach you the results, but next to nothing in regards to how they got there, which is retarded. Research that can't be reproduced (by lack of explanation of the methods used) is tantamount to saying "trust me bro". Besides, how am I supposed to solve new problems, if you don't show me how my ancestors solved the old ones?

[Anonymous No.16726769]

>>16726272
Thalia. I don't think I can live up to Calliope's expectations

[Anonymous No.16726774]

>>16726679
Many history of science books famalam

[Anonymous No.16726784]

>>16726272
for me, its you op.

[Anonymous No.16726787]

>>16726679
you can start by reading the works of ancient astronomers/"scientists" in general (ptolemy and the presocratics come to mind)
The way I see it is that ancient "scientists" like say, the presocratics, were closer to poets than scientists. The observational rigour that we imagine nowadays when we think of the hard sciences didn't really exist until the christian alchemists figured out their emerald tablets were fake and ditched their presuppositions but kept their methods (thus, chemistry). That isn't to say the ancients' theories didn't have INTERNAL rigour, ptolemy's cosmology is symbologically sublime even though geocentrism has since been debunked. But like a poet constructs an internal world disconnected from reality, ancient scientists created their worlds in a way that was tangentially related to reality.

[Anonymous No.16726817]

>>16726679
For astronomy 19th c Naked Eye viewing handbooks go into all kinds of detail of this kind

[Anonymous No.16727321]

>>16726679
>inb4 "they had nothing better to do so they just looked at the sky"
Nigger that's literally the answer.

[Anonymous No.16727468]

>>16726272
Terpsichore

[Anonymous No.16727517]

>>16726272
Clio deep inside your arsehole,
and all you wish is that
Melpomene would slit your throat.

[Anonymous No.16727565]

>>16726272
um excuse why are none of these cartoons POC??????????????????

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16727628]

>>16726398
No! She’s mine!

*Kalliopē

[Anonymous No.16727688]

>>16726679
>"they had nothing better to do so they just looked at the sky"
thats litterally just the fucking answer, why did you wave off the most probably reason off hand. If you and your rich buddies are having a night party, might as well do fucking geometry on the shinny lights in the sky that seem to have an interesting and consistant movement to them.