/lit/ - Literature

Je ne veux comparer tes beautez à la Lune :
La Lune est inconstante, et ton vouloir n'est qu'un.
Encor moins au Soleil : le Soleil est commun,
Commune est sa lumiere, et tu n'es pas commune.

Tu forces par vertu l'envie et la rancune.
Je ne suis, te louant, un flateur importun.
Tu sembles à toymesme, et n'a portrait aucun :
Tu es toute ton Dieu, ton Astre, et ta Fortune.

Ceux qui font de leur Dame à toy comparaison,
Sont ou presumptueux, ou perclus de raison :
D'esprit et de sçavoir de bien loin tu les passes :

Ou bien quelque Demon de ton corps s'est vestu,
Ou bien tu es portrait de la mesme Vertu,
Ou bien tu es Pallas, ou bien l'une des Graces.

>>3128694
saved

>>3128800

Satan's soliloquy on Mt. Niphates in the beginning of book IV is definitely the best part of the entire poem.

>>3128750
>Book 1 to be the crowning jewel of the poem

u wot m8

Book 2 was the best to read, because of >dat flyting between Satan, Sin and Death. Book 4 was the greatest artistic achievement -- best verse and structurally perfect.

>>3128675
I want to believe you are trolling, but just in case you aren't, this is fucking Rome and Greece; the distinction between philosophy and science is not even close to being made yet. And even then, Plato is not dense; read the Symposium and Phaedro and you'll see.

OP: read Ovid's Metamorphoses and Homer's Odyssey and you're on your way. Neither of them are difficult.

>>3128364

This; Satan has to be the arch-villain of all literature.

>>3128585

I can't quite agree with this. Your argument seems to be that all biases/perspectives/whatever are equally valid and the right thing to do is to read loads of things so it all balances out in the end. I'm not sure if this is the best way to help someone new get into philosophy. It might hold when it comes to philosophical works -- read everything and decide which views suit you best, that sort of thing. I'm fine with that, but the problem here is that History isn't a philosophical work, it's a work of social history, designed for people new to philosophy. For that reaosn, its blatant "bias", or whatever you want to call it, is far more difficult to tolerate. Russell conveniently ignores/forgets parts of philosophical history that he didn't particularly like/understand, or slags them off unjustifiably (Hegel), and he spends a ridiculously too long on the Greeks.

The best way to study philosophy, in my opnion at least, is not to aim for an overview of any sorts -- just pick a central debate or branch of philosophy and get your nose stuck into one of the seminal works with a secondary text nearby. What you uncover will lead you conveniently onto other things, and if you have the Oxford Companion to Philosophy and the SEP alongside you, you'll be just fine. Personally I'd recommend reading Descartes's Meditations, then follow it up with some Hume and Berkeley, and then expand wherever your fancy takes you, but you can do whatever interests you.

>>3128563

Paradise Lost is not difficult. It takes a while to get "into it", and Milton's poetic voice becomes booming and dominant which wears on you a little when you've been reading for hours, but Paradise Lost is one of the most enjoyable and beautiful works of literature ever written. If you're not getting anything out of it, it must be because you can't understand it -- no other reason is possible -- which in turn must be because you haven't read enough 17th century poetry. Try to rectify this and hopefully Milton should come more easily to you.

>>3127179

Not to be one of those people who say "this", but, this. This is good.

>>3127596

One last try.