TOPICS

SEE ALSO

AUTH

BOOKS

Infinite_Library

IN CHAPTERS TITLE

IN CHAPTERS CLASSNAME

IN CHAPTERS TEXT

Ion

PRIMARY CLASS

author

SIMILAR TITLES

Archilochus

TERMS STARTING WITH


TERMS ANYWHERE

archilochian ::: a. --> Of or pertaining to the satiric Greek poet Archilochus; as, Archilochian meter.

epode ::: n. --> The after song; the part of a lyric ode which follows the strophe and antistrophe, -- the ancient ode being divided into strophe, antistrophe, and epode.
A species of lyric poem, invented by Archilochus, in which a longer verse is followed by a shorter one; as, the Epodes of Horace. It does not include the elegiac distich.

KEYS (10k)

   3 Archilochus

NEW FULL DB (2.4M)

   14 Archilochus
   3 Philip E Tetlock
   2 Steven Pressfield

1:Attribute all to the Gods. ~ Archilochus,

2:We do not rise to the level of our expectations. We fall to the level of our training. ~ Archilochus,

3:Nothing can be sworn impossible since Zeus made night during mid-day, hiding the light of the shining Sun. ~ Archilochus,

*** WISDOM TROVE ***

*** NEWFULLDB 2.4M ***

1:And by a prudent flight and cunning save ~ Archilochus,

2:Old women should not seek to be perfumed. ~ Archilochus,

3:The Fox knows many things-the hedgehog one big one. ~ Archilochus,

4:I have a high art, I hurt with cruelty those who would damage me. ~ Archilochus,

5:Archilochus: “The fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing. ~ Philip E Tetlock,

6:We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training. ~ Archilochus,

7:We do not rise to the level of our expectations. We fall to the level of our training. ~ Archilochus,

8:warrior-poet Archilochus: “The fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing. ~ Philip E Tetlock,

9:We do not rise to the level of our expectations. We fall to the level of our training.” —Archilochus ~ Timothy Ferriss,

10:Nothing can be sworn impossible since Zeus made night during mid-day, hiding the light of the shining Sun. ~ Archilochus,

11:Nothing can be sworn impossible since Zeus made night during mid-day, hiding the light of the shining Sun. ~ Archilochus,

12:Zeus, the father of the Olympic Gods, turned mid-day into night, hiding the light of the dazzling Sun; and sore fear came upon men. ~ Archilochus,

13:Take the joy and bear the sorrow, looking past your hopes and fears: learn to recognize the measured dance that orders all our years. ~ Archilochus,

14:Let who will boast their courage in the field, I find but little safety from my shield, Nature's, not honour's law we must obey: This made me cast my useless shield away. ~ Archilochus,

15:Be brave, my heart. Plant your feet and square your shoulders to the enemy. Meet him among the man-killing spears. Hold your ground. In victory, do not brag; in defeat, do not weep. ~ Archilochus,

16:These golden matters Of Gyges and his treasuries Are no concern of mine. Jealousy has no power over me, Nor do I envy a god his work, And I do not burn to rule. Such things have no Fascination for my eyes. ~ Archilochus,

17:Be brave, my heart [wrote the poet and mercenary Archilochus]. Plant your feet and square your shoulders to the enemy. Meet him among the man-killing spears. Hold your ground. In victory, do not brag; in defeat, do not weep. ~ Steven Pressfield,

18:The argument of Alcidamas: Everyone honours the wise. Thus the Parians have honoured Archilochus, in spite of his bitter tongue; the Chians Homer, though he was not their countryman; the Mytilenaeans Sappho, though she was a woman; the Lacedaemonians actually made Chilon a member of their senate, though they are the least literary of men; the inhabitants of Lampsacus gave public burial to Anaxagoras, though he was an alien, and honour him even to this day. ~ Aristotle,

19:Be brave, my heart [wrote the poet and mercenary Archilochus]. Plant your feet and square your shoulders to the enemy. Meet him among the man-killing spears. Hold your ground. In victory, do not brag; in defeat, do not weep. The ancients resisted innovation in warfare because they feared it would rob the struggle of honor. King Agis was shown a new catapult, which could shoot a killing dart 200 yards. When he saw this, he wept. “Alas,” he said. “Valor is no more. ~ Steven Pressfield,

20:The Greek philosopher Archilochus tells us, the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one great thing. The fox—artful, sly and astute—represents the financial institution that knows many things about complex markets and sophisticated marketing. The hedgehog—whose sharp spines give it almost impregnable armor when it curls into a ball—is the financial institution that knows only one great thing: long-term investment success is based on simplicity. John C. Bogle ~ Michael W Covel,

21:Nothing can be surprising any more or impossible or miraculous, now that Zeus, father of the Olympians has made night out of noonday, hiding the bright sunlight, and... fear has come upon mankind. After this, men can believe anything, expect anything. Don't any of you be surprised in future if land beasts change places with dolphins and go to live in their salty pastures, and get to like the sounding waves of the sea more than the land, while the dolphins prefer the mountains. ~ Archilochus,

22:Had the ancient Greek poet Archilochus and the modern philosopher Isaiah Berlin been magically transported to northern Italy in November of 218 B.C., they might well have speculated on the strategic prospects. “Hannibal knows many things, but Rome knows one big thing,” the Greek might have proposed. To which Berlin might have replied, “Perhaps at the outset. But then the fox could get stuck in a rut, and the hedgehog might learn new tricks.” This would have been the Second Punic War epitomized. ~ Anonymous,

23:Harry carefully transferred the pet to Beatrix's hands. "'The fox has many tricks,'" he quoted, "'the hedgehog only one.'" He smiled at Beatrix as he added, "but it's a good one." "Archilochus," Beatrix said promptly. "You read Greek poetry, Mr. Rutledge?" "Not usually. But I make an exception for Archilocus. He knew how to make a point." "Father used to call him a 'raging iambic,'" Poppy said, and Harry laughed. And in that moment, Poppy made her decision. Because even though Harry Rutledge had his flaws, he admitted them freely. And a man who could charm a hedgehog and understand jokes about ancient Greek poets was a man worth taking a risk on. She wouldn't be able to marry for love, but she could at least marry for hope. ~ Lisa Kleypas,

24:In the EPJ results, there were two statistically distinguishable groups of experts. The first failed to do better than random guessing, and in their longer-range forecasts even managed to lose to the chimp. The second group beat the chimp, though not by a wide margin, and they still had plenty of reason to be humble. Indeed, they only barely beat simple algorithms like “always predict no change” or “predict the recent rate of change.” Still, however modest their foresight was, they had some. So why did one group do better than the other? It wasn’t whether they had PhDs or access to classified information. Nor was it what they thought—whether they were liberals or conservatives, optimists or pessimists. The critical factor was how they thought. One group tended to organize their thinking around Big Ideas, although they didn’t agree on which Big Ideas were true or false. Some were environmental doomsters (“We’re running out of everything”); others were cornucopian boomsters (“We can find cost-effective substitutes for everything”). Some were socialists (who favored state control of the commanding heights of the economy); others were free-market fundamentalists (who wanted to minimize regulation). As ideologically diverse as they were, they were united by the fact that their thinking was so ideological. They sought to squeeze complex problems into the preferred cause-effect templates and treated what did not fit as irrelevant distractions. Allergic to wishy-washy answers, they kept pushing their analyses to the limit (and then some), using terms like “furthermore” and “moreover” while piling up reasons why they were right and others wrong. As a result, they were unusually confident and likelier to declare things “impossible” or “certain.” Committed to their conclusions, they were reluctant to change their minds even when their predictions clearly failed. They would tell us, “Just wait.” The other group consisted of more pragmatic experts who drew on many analytical tools, with the choice of tool hinging on the particular problem they faced. These experts gathered as much information from as many sources as they could. When thinking, they often shifted mental gears, sprinkling their speech with transition markers such as “however,” “but,” “although,” and “on the other hand.” They talked about possibilities and probabilities, not certainties. And while no one likes to say “I was wrong,” these experts more readily admitted it and changed their minds. Decades ago, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin wrote a much-acclaimed but rarely read essay that compared the styles of thinking of great authors through the ages. To organize his observations, he drew on a scrap of 2,500-year-old Greek poetry attributed to the warrior-poet Archilochus: “The fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” No one will ever know whether Archilochus was on the side of the fox or the hedgehog but Berlin favored foxes. I felt no need to take sides. I just liked the metaphor because it captured something deep in my data. I dubbed the Big Idea experts “hedgehogs” and the more eclectic experts “foxes.” Foxes beat hedgehogs. And the foxes didn’t just win by acting like chickens, playing it safe with 60% and 70% forecasts where hedgehogs boldly went with 90% and 100%. Foxes beat hedgehogs on both calibration and resolution. Foxes had real foresight. Hedgehogs didn’t. ~ Philip E Tetlock,

   1 Philosophy

Ion, #unset, #Anonymous, #Various   Ion the rhapsode has just come to Athens; he has been exhibiting in Epidaurus at the festival of Asclepius, and is intending to exhibit at the festival of the Pana thenaea. Socrates admires and envies the rhapsode's art; for he is always well dressed and in good companyin the company of good poets and of Homer, who is the prince of them. In the course of conversation the admission is elicited from Ion that his skill is restricted to Homer, and that he knows nothing of inferior poets, such as Hesiod and Archilochus;he brightens up and is wide awake when Homer is being recited, but is apt to go to sleep at the recitations of any other poet. 'And yet, surely, he who knows the superior ought to know the inferior also;he who can judge of the good speaker is able to judge of the bad. And poetry is a whole; and he who judges of poetry by rules of art ought to be able to judge of all poetry.' This is confirmed by the analogy of sculpture, painting, flute-playing, and the other arts. The argument is at last brought home to the mind of Ion, who asks how this contradiction is to be solved. The solution given by Socrates is as follows:   The rhapsode is not guided by rules of art, but is an inspired person who derives a mysterious power from the poet; and the poet, in like manner, is inspired by the God. The poets and their interpreters may be compared to a chain of magnetic rings suspended from one another, and from a magnet. The magnet is the Muse, and the ring which immediately follows is the poet himself; from him are suspended other poets; there is also a chain of rhapsodes and actors, who also hang from the Muses, but are let down at the side; and the last ring of all is the spectator. The poet is the inspired interpreter of the God, and this is the reason why some poets, like Homer, are restricted to a single theme, or, like Tynnichus, are famous for a single poem; and the rhapsode is the inspired interpreter of the poet, and for a similar reason some rhapsodes, like Ion, are the interpreters of single poets.   --   SOCRATES: I shall take an opportunity of hearing your embellishments of him at some other time. But just now I should like to ask you a question: Does your art extend to Hesiod and Archilochus, or to Homer only?   ION: To Homer only; he is in himself quite enough.   --   SOCRATES: And you say that Homer and the other poets, such as Hesiod and Archilochus, speak of the same things, although not in the same way; but the one speaks well and the other not so well?   ION: Yes; and I am right in saying so.